Military Battle I heard that the last time Mexico won an actual military battle was against the French. Is this true?
I think it's the only time Mexico defeated a foreign army as well. If this is true, what does it say about France? I mean before The Alamo happened after Cinco De Mayo. Check your timeline first before you make that claim.
It's hard to believe that this, the BEST EVER 1812 Overture was not only recorded in the 1950s, but it still sounds better than any other version. This last fact is a tribute to the remastering expertise of producer Wilma Cozart Fine, and a still greater tribute to her late husband, a recording genius, for leaving her with such fantastic quality original tapes to work with...
The Leader in Traumatic Bleeding Arrest: Developed for the military and used extensively by the U.S. Army (also known as the Israeli Battle Dressing or IBD, and used in U.S. military IFAK kits), the Emergency Trauma Bandage represents the cutting edge of traumatic wound control, and has features that are combat proven...
Modernized with 21st Century materials & workmanship, the new Lagana Tactical Tomahawk sets the bar for ease of carry, toughness & versatility. No axe in the War on Terror has seen & done more. Tactical Tomahawks have come in handy for many soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan...
WallMonkeys wall graphics are printed on the highest quality re-positionable, self-adhesive fabric paper. Each order is printed in-house and on-demand. WallMonkeys uses premium materials & state-of-the-art production technologies...
Noted as the best prehospital tourniquet in the February 2008 supplement of The Journal of Trauma The C-A-T® is a true one-handed tourniquet proven to be 100% effective by the U.S. Army's Institute of Surgical Research...
Kids can stage their own military battles with this jumbo bag of toy soldiers. These green army men come in a variety of poses with various weapons for ultra-realistic battles. These classic toy soldiers let your child's imagination and sense of adventure run wild...
The North American Rescue Emergency Trauma Dressing (ETD) 4 inch is a resilient elastic wrap equipped with a sterile non-adherent pad. A durable securing device and innovative Quick-GripTM Roll Control configuration allow a rapid, controlled, and extremely effective application process in the most demanding of conditions...
The Turtle Beach Call of Duty: MW3 Ear Force Bravo (EFB) Limited Edition headset is ready for battle with programmable presets, wireless game sound, universal compatibility and a rechargeable battery. Featuring exclusive Call of Duty: MW3 customized presets, exclusive COD color scheme and textured military finish, massive 50mm speakers and full supply of bonus MW3 content, the Ear Force Bravo is built to let you Hear Everything and dominate...
T-flight x flight stick. Thrustmaster 2960694 t-flight stick x flight stick. Specs: wide hand rest for perfect comfort; fully programmable 12 buttons & 4 axes; does not include games exclusively controlled by the motion sensor function; plug & play; precise joystick with adjustable resistance control; mapping button allows users to insta...
This brand new embroidered patch depicts the Fallen Soldier's Battle Cross, for military men and women killed on the battlefield. Heat-seal backing allows buyer to iron this patch onto virtually any fabric.
12 OZ STONE WASHED CANVAS SIZE: 12 1/2" x 11" x 3 1/2" COLOR CANVAS - KHAKI WITH "BROWN" MEDICS CROSS SYMBOL LARGE COMPARTMENT WITH FLAP BROWN LEATHER CLOSING STRAPS ADJUSTABLE SHOULDER STRAP HANG TAGS
JR. G.I. Army Digital Camouflage Pants, 55% Cotton / 45% Polyester, Adjustable Waist Tabs, Zipper Fly, Two Front Slash Pockets, Two Button Down Back Pockets, Two Large Button Down Pleated Leg Pockets, Draw String Ankle Ties.
Defeat the Rebels with Imperial might! Build up your Imperial forces and celebrate the 30th anniversary of The Empire Strikes Back! When the Rebels' secret base is discovered on Hoth, the Empire attacks with a force of cold-weather Snowtroopers(tm)...
Great set of Plastic Army Men in 4 colors with lots of different WW2 figures with over 40 poses. American GI's in Green, British Commandos in Yellow, German in Gray, Japanese in Light Green. Each army has it's own 4-1/2 inch tall flag...
HelizoneRC introduces the newest 3.5 Channel Gyro Helicopter. This isn't your ordinary radio control helicopter that is limited to just flying, up/down, left/right, forward and backward. The combat fighter adds missile launching shooting abilities as well as speed acceleration for action pack fun...
Give your vehicle a touch of style and individuality with this high quality premium license plate frame made of polished steel. This frame has a durable metal construction and a shiny chrome finish, which gives it a unique and expensive look...
Give your vehicle a touch of style and individuality with this high quality premium license plate frame made of polished steel. This frame has a durable metal construction and a shiny chrome finish, which gives it a unique and expensive look...
Battle on Haifa Street, Baghdad, Iraq
A Look at Military Tanks Ability to Cross Very Rough Terrain Areas at High Speeds
Modern armored tactics involve the combined use of infantry and military tanks for ample maneuvers on the battle field, with the elements in the system being included in a mutual support circuit. The first military tanks were used during the world wars and ever since the history of military tactics has changed completely. Each country relies on certain types of military tanks, and though the models and the manufacturers are facts of public knowledge, national security prevents the disclosure of too complex information about the military tanks whereabouts. They were the invention of the British army during World War I and have been imported afterwards at the international scale.
The great advantage military tanks brought is the ability to cross very rough terrain areas at high speeds while also firing. The level of heavy armor that is part of the design ensures a high degree of survivability for the soldiers that operate military tanks in the conditions of breakthroughs in the enemy areas. It is highly uncommon that such special units be used individually; most of the time military tanks are part of armored divisions or combined forces that work together in combat. One main reason for the inadequacy of individual use is the existence of anti-tank artillery, and anti-tank bombs that were created as the main defenses against combat breach creation.
In a top of the most versatile weapons, military tanks occupy a top place due to the ability to cause damage to low ground targets on the battlefield. The current tendency in our society is to invest in less conventional warfare; yet, all countries keep military tanks high in their preferences for defense and offense weaponry. Throughout a century of changes and technological development, military tanks have been improved with every more advanced armored systems, and maintenance costs are anything but low.
Owing to the high protection technologies used in the design of military tanks, such war machines are able to remain undetected on the battlefield; furthermore, they are also pretty difficult to engage and destroy a target given their strategic mobility. However, defense properties cannot be increased at all levels: for instance, higher mobility is achieved by adding less heavy armor. Or on the other hand, advanced armors are used when mobility is not considered a crucial element for the operation. Consequently, thanks to the overwhelming presence on any battlefield, military tanks will continue to be used as long as there are wars to fight.
About the Author
Muna wa Wanjiru Has Been Researching and Reporting on Military Gear for Years. For More Information on Military Tanks, Visit His Site at MILITARY TANKS
I'm reading three books, which is a lot for someone who usually doesn't read any because there's enough uni books to read.
I'm almost a third of the way through “The Fatal Shore” which is about the colonisation of Australia. It's a very big book so it's going on hold for a while.
I'm reading “Dreams From My Father” by Barack Obama. I thought it would be interesting since he wrote it before he became a Senator, and it doesn't have the political adjustments to it (so he doesn't hide the fact he tried drugs).
The third is “the 33 strategies of war”, which I thought was a military book but it is technically a self-help book for managers and CEOs. It's a pretty interesting read on key military battles which are interpreted to use in your everyday life.
BC2 has the best multi-player. Period. MW2 was too oriented towards clowns memorizing maps, sitting in corners and sniping. BC2 is more like real military battles.
DrStrangebomb1993 November 29th, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
How did stormtroopers who fought in the clone wars against military battle droids, massacred the jedi and kicked everyone's arses lose to a bunch of teddy bears.
There were several comments that you made that represent very interesting debates–what, exactly, is legal and factual to teach in the science classroom (e.g, what counts as “science” and what is merely “religion”), what, exactly, religious teachers are morally and legally allowed to do/say in the classroom (e.g, is having a religious poster or something like that illegal and/or wrong?), same-sex marriage, etc, etc…however, I think if I were to comment on them it would take us down some rabbit trails that would stretch this already stretched conversation. It would turn out to be a very unfocused conversation, so I'm gonna let those subjects fall by the wayside until another conversation, and I'm gonna focus my comments now on what I take to be the main subject–character and public schools (though I will give some data about the effect of fatherlessness on children, because you requested it).
First, I need to define naturalism so that we are both on the same page. Naturalism is not merely the practice of using reason, evidence, valuing scientific inquiry, or basing one's beliefs on the “facts.” Theists and non-theists alike can do all that. Rather, Naturalism is the view that the physical world is all that exists. Carl Sagan put it nicely: the cosmos is all there is, was, or ever will be. There is nothing immaterial in existence. Anything like “consciousness” is either eliminated from reality or explained in terms of arising from physical constants (called “supervenience”). There are different ways of stating it, but that's the bottom line with Naturalism.
Now, notice one thing: according to Naturalistic epistemology, the only things that count as knowledge are things that can be known via the five senses. Some Naturalists leave a bit of room for a priori knowledge, but its pretty thin soup. Mostly, they restrict knowledge to the hard sciences. So if something cannot be known through the hard sciences, it is put in another, non-knowledge category, like emotion or feeling or mere “belief.” (As an aside, a few Naturalists do try to retain objective moral facts by tethering them to physical facts, but I think they are woefully unsuccessful in their attempt)
Ethics and morality cannot be known by the hard sciences. Moral rules are not physical–you can't bump into them in the night. Therefore, most Naturalists relegate them to one of those non-knowledge categories. According to them, moral rules are not objective facts at home in the furniture of the universe. They are subjective, or conventional (akin to made-up rules about eating salad with a fork as opposed to a spoon), or something else entirely, like survival instincts (this tack changes morality into something wholly non-normative). Naturalism eliminates morality from the realm of knowledge…there is no room for them in a Naturalistic epistemology.
This is what I keep referring to….public education, like it or not, assumes a Naturalist epistemology. When it comes to things like morality, the message is clear: you can believe what you want, but don't pretend that your moral views are objectively true and have anything to do with reality. We then go on to say that certain things are really wrong (like judging, “pushing one's morality on another,” cheating, etc–our secular moral hobby-horses), but we miss the fact that our collective assumed epistemology in education completely undermines those statements.
BTW, this phenomena isn't just restricted to public ed…its a facet of our Western secular culture at large…it's just that public ed is an extension of our secular culture.
Ok, with that background, let me comment on your comments. Yours start with a >, mine with a –:
>I would argue that it is not the job of the educational institution to provide character growth. We live in a pluralistic society, and I’m sure that Rich would agree with me that he wouldn’t want his children being taught character and religious morals by Muslims or Buddhists any more than children of Muslims or Buddhists or Jews would like to be taught religious morals by him. As always, I stipulate that the job of teaching moral ethics, whether religious or not, lies with a child’s parents. That is their job, and nobody else’s.
–I realize you want to talk about teaching religious doctrine in public ed. We probably agree a lot on that score. You are correct when you insinuate that I wouldn't want someone teaching Muslim religious doctrine to my kids in a public school.
However, that is not what I'm talking about. I am talking about *morality,* not *religious doctrine.* Though the two are related, they are different subjects. At points, you seem to conflate the two. Again, teaching that morality is an objective feature of the world and hence can be known is not specifically a Christian religious doctrine. Conservative and liberal adherents to a number of religions hold the same thing, so it cannot be said that such a notion violates the Establishment Clause. Teaching that one can know moral right from wrong and teaching that moral character that is an element of knowledge does not commit me to teaching any one specific religious doctrine.
There are specific moral views that I think should be taught (or at least *discussed* like there is an actual right/wrong on the issue. We can discuss certain moral debates like an answer can be known without resorting to mandating/teaching a certain point of view. Giving room for liberty of thought on a moral debate does not mean we must say, “it's all opinion, so one's opinion is just as good as the next.”), but again, these are not elements of specific religions–those of many or no religions adhere to them.
I do hold that a *theistic universe* is the best explanation and home for objective morality, but this is different from saying that morality comes from the Bible. For example, take “murder is objectively wrong.” This is taught in the Bible, but that's not why it's wrong. It is not wrong b.c its in the Bible; its in the Bible b.c its wrong. It is wrong because it violates the dignity of a human being with intrinsic worth. Human beings–persons–with intrinsic worth fit very nicely in a theistic world with a good personal God, but very unnaturally in an atheistic world. Why think humans have intrinsic worth (worth just b.c they are human, not b.c of any function/ability they possess) if they arose from a blind, amoral, purposeless process? Things like “dignity” and “intrinsic worth” are very queer (this was an actual term used by atheist J.L Mackie, one of the most famous atheist phil's of the 20th century) in a Naturalistic universe.
>As Rich is seemingly wont to do, let us not conflate this with things like cheating and murder. Cheating in the classroom is a directly detrimental of the educational process, regardless of what your religion is. Murder is unlawful. These are not not up for debate. I’m talking about specific religious doctrines in the classroom.
–Refer to above discussion. I think we agree on specific religious doctrines in the classroom, but in all of my posts so far I've focused on something different.
Question: when you refer to cheating and murder, are you saying they are wrong because of their bad consequences and because they are already against the law? If that is not why they are wrong, why are they wrong on your view? Are they objectively, factually morally wrong, or just wrong *for you?*
If they are wrong b.c of their bad effects–what counts as a “bad effect?” More importantly, what about things that have no bad effects? If a peeping tom was outside watching your sister bathe (without her knowledge), would be be doing something wrong? It is hard to see what bad effect that action would have on others, including your sister (remember, she doesn't know and isn't being directly harmed), but most would still say it's wrong.
If they are wrong b.c they are unlawful–things have been unlawful in the past that were clearly morally right–aiding and abetting a runaway slave, for instance.
My point: bad consequences and something being unlawful are neither necessary nor sufficient for saying something is morally wrong.
There is one thing related to religious doctrines that I think should be clarified, though: some religious doctrines arise from historical study. That is, they can be made reasonable/unreasonable, rational/irrational by referring to historical evidence (the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is an example). While a history teacher might need to be mum on teaching, say, the substitutionary atonement view of Jesus' crucifixion, he should not be mum on referring to *historical evidence* that confirms or disconfirms the historical event of the man named Jesus of Nazareth being crucified on a Roman cross. The latter is an historical event that can be verified or not (that is, evidence for the event can be offered), while the former is a theological extrapolation from the event.
The same goes for any other historical events referred to in other religions (Muhammad existing and fighting in certain military battles, for instance, or the Mormons migrating to Utah. Even the claim that Joseph Smith translated the B.O.M from an ancient language into English can be historically buttressed or disconfirmed.)
>Primary schools are not supposed to be teaching a “worldview.” They are teaching the accumulation of knowledge, passed down by many generations and centuries of accumulated scientific study. The accumulations of facts, known as the scientific consensus, is totally neutral to “worldviews”.
–You just reflected your own worldview in that last statement. What you count as knowledge–scientific consensus–reflects the Naturalist epistemology that I just layed out above. You count out other areas of study, like philosophy, history, and theology–as areas of knowledge. This is most definitely *not* neutral! This is Naturalist epistemology. That doesn't mean you are wrong–you might be right; that is a different question entirely. My point is that there is no neutral ground here. A school or person *cannot* not assume a worldview. There is no “view from nowhere,” completely untethered from a worldview. This, of course, does not mean we can't know anything–knowledge is still quite attainable even though worldview neutrality is not possible.
>However, I totally reject that the concept of morality, “right and wrong”, ethics, etc. belongs exclusively in the arena of religion. The idea that morals and ethics arose from religion is completely unsubstantiated – it’s very easily proven that those concepts arose in human culture long before religion. Those are human values, not religious ones.
–Again, I am not claiming that right and wrong is based on the Bible. The Bible might inform our moral knowledge in places, but that doesn't mean that right and wrong totally comes from the Bible. I agree with you in part, though I phrase it differently. Humans have possessed moral knowledge before the Bible was assembled, and cultures that do not have the Bible possess moral knowledge (the Bible actually teaches this in Romans 1).
A good question to ask, then, is: what grounds this extra-biblical moral knowledge, ontologically-speaking? Are these moral rules ground in the character of a good, personal God (who would exist before the Bible was assembled) who then went on to bestow human beings with a conscience (so they could know such moral rules), or are these moral rules simply brute facts, ungrounded in the furniture of nature (a few Naturalists do go this route)? Or, are they something else entirely? For instance, are they not “facts” at all, but just the herd instinct that has helped us survive, or social conventions that help us get along? If they are either, do we have an obligation to obey such “rules”? In my mind, if morality is the herd instinct or social convention, it's a bit of a stretch to call something “evil,” “wicked,” or “unjust.” “Not conducive to survival,” or maybe “not prudent/practical,” sure…its just hard to see how we could maintain the concept of moral obligation on such grounds.
>You would call me a “naturalist,” but I still strongly believe that cheating, lying, and hurting my fellow humans is wrong. Not because it offends a deity, but because it offends my sense of values that come from a naturalistic viewpoint – which sees the destruction that this sort of behaviour causes in society.
–What do you mean that it “offends your sense of values that come from a Naturalist viewpoint”? What would you say to someone who responded, “my sense of values tells me cheating is entirely ok”? or someone who said, “I don't care about the destruction caused by society. It benefits me, so I'm gonna do it”? You might be able to say cheating is wrong *for you,* but how, on your view, can you say others are obligated to follow your rules?
ME: Do we really want students believing that the decision to be honest or cheat is just a matter of personal taste, and you really can’t know whether its really right to be honest?
YOU:> Nobody is seriously arguing for that. Straw man.
–Actually, some do. They are called relativists, emotivists, subjectivists, amoralists, verificationalists. There are lots of philosophical viewpoints that agree with that above statement. Besides, relativism is alive and well in the college dorm room…witness the slogans like “that's just your opinion,” “if you think its wrong, fine, don't do it, but don't push your morality on me.” Never mind that such slogans are completely contradictory–they arise from the notion that right and wrong are not matters of objective fact but instead are matters of personal, private taste.
The most important point, though, is that regardless of whether or not anyone actually says that morals are matters of personal tastes, my contention is that that is the logical consequence of some things they *do* say. If morality is not an objective feature of the world and is not an element of knowledge, connect the logical dots…that leads to the conclusion that flouting them is no more serious than eating salad with a spoon, or choosing chocolate cake over apple pie, or flouting the herd instinct.
ME: I don’t know why Kevin is making this point. Am I to believe that just because astrologers et al believe it and say it, that means it’s rubbish? Astrologers also believe that if you jump off a 20 story building, you’ll fall. Does that mean gravity is bogus?
YOU: > Were you totally high when you typed that paragraph?
–ahhh, perhaps. That was a bit of a typo. It should have read, “Astrologers also believe in gravity–that if you jump off a 20 story building, you will fall. Does that mean gravity is bogus?…” The point was that just because crazy people believe it, doesn't make it wrong. Sure, astrologers believe some crazy things, but that doesn't mean everything they believe is bogus.
>just like Christians believe that if you follow a certain set of rules, after you die, your spirit is going to this other realm called Heaven (another totally unfounded belief.) These are faith-based beliefs.
–You are trying to equate astrology with Christian beliefs…but Christianity can be historically verified/deverified, and evidence can be offered for its truth or falsehood….It's validity depends upon historical foundations, which cannot be said of astrology. It's not just “blind faith.”
–Plus, it is not true that the Bible teaches that if you follow certain rules you go to heaven when you die. Have you read the Bible? Where are you getting this? (I clarified this, hopefully sufficiently, in our personal emails back and forth.)
>This “naturalism” is responsible for all of the technology you see around you. It’s responsible for the computer that you’re reading this message on, and on all of the networks which has carried this message to you. If you’ve ever been to the doctor, it’s responsible for the medicine you’ve taken. It’s responsible for the structures that your house is built upon, and the reason why your car starts when you put the key in the ignition.
–How so? How have all those things been derived from Naturalism as I defined it above? They are derived from the scientific method of observation of the natural world, hypothesis, testing, confirmation/disconfirmation, etc, but this is not Naturalism, nor does it confirm Naturalism. What works are scientific hypothesis, and this is different from N-ism.
Besides, many scientists of the past have been theists (Galileo, Kepler, Bacon…Francis Collins, of the Human Genome Project, is a present day theist….I can come up with many others whose significant discoveries are most definitely not due to Naturalism) who studied the natural realm because they believed it to operate according to certain regularities which were the product of an intelligent designer. Modern science arose from theistic convictions.
The following paper by U Tx prof Robert Koons might be helpful:
>The impetus is on you to prove it (Naturalism) wrong. Do so, if you can
–Kevin, the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. I have made claims and so have a burden of proof to shoulder, but so have you, and it is quite unfair to think that I'm the only guy who has some 'splainin to do. In the case of Naturalism, as I've already pointed out, it is not a default view–it makes claims about the nature of the reality, morality, what makes a human being, and what counts as knowledge. These are claims that must be substantiated, just like theistic claims about reality et al must be substantiated.
ME: Basically, if a boy grows up without a father (and vice versa for girls), his development and growth as a person will most likely be severely stunted.
YOU: > Prove it. Give me some data on that.
–First, some experience: come teach where I teach. The fatherless rate astronomical in the inner city–above 70% according to many studies. It is absolutely clear that most boys at my school have no clue what it means to be a man. Ya, ya, I know what they say about correlation not being causation, but in this case it's a stretch to think the correlation is totally coincidental.
October 31st, 2010 @ 12:01 pm
I'm reading three books, which is a lot for someone who usually doesn't read any because there's enough uni books to read.
I'm almost a third of the way through “The Fatal Shore” which is about the colonisation of Australia. It's a very big book so it's going on hold for a while.
I'm reading “Dreams From My Father” by Barack Obama. I thought it would be interesting since he wrote it before he became a Senator, and it doesn't have the political adjustments to it (so he doesn't hide the fact he tried drugs).
The third is “the 33 strategies of war”, which I thought was a military book but it is technically a self-help book for managers and CEOs. It's a pretty interesting read on key military battles which are interpreted to use in your everyday life.
http://thisdevilsworkday.wordpress.com/
November 18th, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
BC2 has the best multi-player. Period. MW2 was too oriented towards clowns memorizing maps, sitting in corners and sniping. BC2 is more like real military battles.
November 29th, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
How did stormtroopers who fought in the clone wars against military battle droids, massacred the jedi and kicked everyone's arses lose to a bunch of teddy bears.
December 9th, 2010 @ 11:41 pm
We all knew Obama would find a way to usurp our tax dollars for the clean-up crew.
January 22nd, 2011 @ 4:44 pm
February 21st, 2011 @ 2:53 pm
Kevin,
There were several comments that you made that represent very interesting debates–what, exactly, is legal and factual to teach in the science classroom (e.g, what counts as “science” and what is merely “religion”), what, exactly, religious teachers are morally and legally allowed to do/say in the classroom (e.g, is having a religious poster or something like that illegal and/or wrong?), same-sex marriage, etc, etc…however, I think if I were to comment on them it would take us down some rabbit trails that would stretch this already stretched conversation. It would turn out to be a very unfocused conversation, so I'm gonna let those subjects fall by the wayside until another conversation, and I'm gonna focus my comments now on what I take to be the main subject–character and public schools (though I will give some data about the effect of fatherlessness on children, because you requested it).
First, I need to define naturalism so that we are both on the same page. Naturalism is not merely the practice of using reason, evidence, valuing scientific inquiry, or basing one's beliefs on the “facts.” Theists and non-theists alike can do all that. Rather, Naturalism is the view that the physical world is all that exists. Carl Sagan put it nicely: the cosmos is all there is, was, or ever will be. There is nothing immaterial in existence. Anything like “consciousness” is either eliminated from reality or explained in terms of arising from physical constants (called “supervenience”). There are different ways of stating it, but that's the bottom line with Naturalism.
Now, notice one thing: according to Naturalistic epistemology, the only things that count as knowledge are things that can be known via the five senses. Some Naturalists leave a bit of room for a priori knowledge, but its pretty thin soup. Mostly, they restrict knowledge to the hard sciences. So if something cannot be known through the hard sciences, it is put in another, non-knowledge category, like emotion or feeling or mere “belief.” (As an aside, a few Naturalists do try to retain objective moral facts by tethering them to physical facts, but I think they are woefully unsuccessful in their attempt)
Ethics and morality cannot be known by the hard sciences. Moral rules are not physical–you can't bump into them in the night. Therefore, most Naturalists relegate them to one of those non-knowledge categories. According to them, moral rules are not objective facts at home in the furniture of the universe. They are subjective, or conventional (akin to made-up rules about eating salad with a fork as opposed to a spoon), or something else entirely, like survival instincts (this tack changes morality into something wholly non-normative). Naturalism eliminates morality from the realm of knowledge…there is no room for them in a Naturalistic epistemology.
This is what I keep referring to….public education, like it or not, assumes a Naturalist epistemology. When it comes to things like morality, the message is clear: you can believe what you want, but don't pretend that your moral views are objectively true and have anything to do with reality. We then go on to say that certain things are really wrong (like judging, “pushing one's morality on another,” cheating, etc–our secular moral hobby-horses), but we miss the fact that our collective assumed epistemology in education completely undermines those statements.
BTW, this phenomena isn't just restricted to public ed…its a facet of our Western secular culture at large…it's just that public ed is an extension of our secular culture.
Ok, with that background, let me comment on your comments. Yours start with a >, mine with a –:
>I would argue that it is not the job of the educational institution to provide character growth. We live in a pluralistic society, and I’m sure that Rich would agree with me that he wouldn’t want his children being taught character and religious morals by Muslims or Buddhists any more than children of Muslims or Buddhists or Jews would like to be taught religious morals by him. As always, I stipulate that the job of teaching moral ethics, whether religious or not, lies with a child’s parents. That is their job, and nobody else’s.
–I realize you want to talk about teaching religious doctrine in public ed. We probably agree a lot on that score. You are correct when you insinuate that I wouldn't want someone teaching Muslim religious doctrine to my kids in a public school.
However, that is not what I'm talking about. I am talking about *morality,* not *religious doctrine.* Though the two are related, they are different subjects. At points, you seem to conflate the two. Again, teaching that morality is an objective feature of the world and hence can be known is not specifically a Christian religious doctrine. Conservative and liberal adherents to a number of religions hold the same thing, so it cannot be said that such a notion violates the Establishment Clause. Teaching that one can know moral right from wrong and teaching that moral character that is an element of knowledge does not commit me to teaching any one specific religious doctrine.
There are specific moral views that I think should be taught (or at least *discussed* like there is an actual right/wrong on the issue. We can discuss certain moral debates like an answer can be known without resorting to mandating/teaching a certain point of view. Giving room for liberty of thought on a moral debate does not mean we must say, “it's all opinion, so one's opinion is just as good as the next.”), but again, these are not elements of specific religions–those of many or no religions adhere to them.
I do hold that a *theistic universe* is the best explanation and home for objective morality, but this is different from saying that morality comes from the Bible. For example, take “murder is objectively wrong.” This is taught in the Bible, but that's not why it's wrong. It is not wrong b.c its in the Bible; its in the Bible b.c its wrong. It is wrong because it violates the dignity of a human being with intrinsic worth. Human beings–persons–with intrinsic worth fit very nicely in a theistic world with a good personal God, but very unnaturally in an atheistic world. Why think humans have intrinsic worth (worth just b.c they are human, not b.c of any function/ability they possess) if they arose from a blind, amoral, purposeless process? Things like “dignity” and “intrinsic worth” are very queer (this was an actual term used by atheist J.L Mackie, one of the most famous atheist phil's of the 20th century) in a Naturalistic universe.
>As Rich is seemingly wont to do, let us not conflate this with things like cheating and murder. Cheating in the classroom is a directly detrimental of the educational process, regardless of what your religion is. Murder is unlawful. These are not not up for debate. I’m talking about specific religious doctrines in the classroom.
–Refer to above discussion. I think we agree on specific religious doctrines in the classroom, but in all of my posts so far I've focused on something different.
Question: when you refer to cheating and murder, are you saying they are wrong because of their bad consequences and because they are already against the law? If that is not why they are wrong, why are they wrong on your view? Are they objectively, factually morally wrong, or just wrong *for you?*
If they are wrong b.c of their bad effects–what counts as a “bad effect?” More importantly, what about things that have no bad effects? If a peeping tom was outside watching your sister bathe (without her knowledge), would be be doing something wrong? It is hard to see what bad effect that action would have on others, including your sister (remember, she doesn't know and isn't being directly harmed), but most would still say it's wrong.
If they are wrong b.c they are unlawful–things have been unlawful in the past that were clearly morally right–aiding and abetting a runaway slave, for instance.
My point: bad consequences and something being unlawful are neither necessary nor sufficient for saying something is morally wrong.
There is one thing related to religious doctrines that I think should be clarified, though: some religious doctrines arise from historical study. That is, they can be made reasonable/unreasonable, rational/irrational by referring to historical evidence (the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is an example). While a history teacher might need to be mum on teaching, say, the substitutionary atonement view of Jesus' crucifixion, he should not be mum on referring to *historical evidence* that confirms or disconfirms the historical event of the man named Jesus of Nazareth being crucified on a Roman cross. The latter is an historical event that can be verified or not (that is, evidence for the event can be offered), while the former is a theological extrapolation from the event.
The same goes for any other historical events referred to in other religions (Muhammad existing and fighting in certain military battles, for instance, or the Mormons migrating to Utah. Even the claim that Joseph Smith translated the B.O.M from an ancient language into English can be historically buttressed or disconfirmed.)
>Primary schools are not supposed to be teaching a “worldview.” They are teaching the accumulation of knowledge, passed down by many generations and centuries of accumulated scientific study. The accumulations of facts, known as the scientific consensus, is totally neutral to “worldviews”.
–You just reflected your own worldview in that last statement. What you count as knowledge–scientific consensus–reflects the Naturalist epistemology that I just layed out above. You count out other areas of study, like philosophy, history, and theology–as areas of knowledge. This is most definitely *not* neutral! This is Naturalist epistemology. That doesn't mean you are wrong–you might be right; that is a different question entirely. My point is that there is no neutral ground here. A school or person *cannot* not assume a worldview. There is no “view from nowhere,” completely untethered from a worldview. This, of course, does not mean we can't know anything–knowledge is still quite attainable even though worldview neutrality is not possible.
>However, I totally reject that the concept of morality, “right and wrong”, ethics, etc. belongs exclusively in the arena of religion. The idea that morals and ethics arose from religion is completely unsubstantiated – it’s very easily proven that those concepts arose in human culture long before religion. Those are human values, not religious ones.
–Again, I am not claiming that right and wrong is based on the Bible. The Bible might inform our moral knowledge in places, but that doesn't mean that right and wrong totally comes from the Bible. I agree with you in part, though I phrase it differently. Humans have possessed moral knowledge before the Bible was assembled, and cultures that do not have the Bible possess moral knowledge (the Bible actually teaches this in Romans 1).
A good question to ask, then, is: what grounds this extra-biblical moral knowledge, ontologically-speaking? Are these moral rules ground in the character of a good, personal God (who would exist before the Bible was assembled) who then went on to bestow human beings with a conscience (so they could know such moral rules), or are these moral rules simply brute facts, ungrounded in the furniture of nature (a few Naturalists do go this route)? Or, are they something else entirely? For instance, are they not “facts” at all, but just the herd instinct that has helped us survive, or social conventions that help us get along? If they are either, do we have an obligation to obey such “rules”? In my mind, if morality is the herd instinct or social convention, it's a bit of a stretch to call something “evil,” “wicked,” or “unjust.” “Not conducive to survival,” or maybe “not prudent/practical,” sure…its just hard to see how we could maintain the concept of moral obligation on such grounds.
>You would call me a “naturalist,” but I still strongly believe that cheating, lying, and hurting my fellow humans is wrong. Not because it offends a deity, but because it offends my sense of values that come from a naturalistic viewpoint – which sees the destruction that this sort of behaviour causes in society.
–What do you mean that it “offends your sense of values that come from a Naturalist viewpoint”? What would you say to someone who responded, “my sense of values tells me cheating is entirely ok”? or someone who said, “I don't care about the destruction caused by society. It benefits me, so I'm gonna do it”? You might be able to say cheating is wrong *for you,* but how, on your view, can you say others are obligated to follow your rules?
ME: Do we really want students believing that the decision to be honest or cheat is just a matter of personal taste, and you really can’t know whether its really right to be honest?
YOU:> Nobody is seriously arguing for that. Straw man.
–Actually, some do. They are called relativists, emotivists, subjectivists, amoralists, verificationalists. There are lots of philosophical viewpoints that agree with that above statement. Besides, relativism is alive and well in the college dorm room…witness the slogans like “that's just your opinion,” “if you think its wrong, fine, don't do it, but don't push your morality on me.” Never mind that such slogans are completely contradictory–they arise from the notion that right and wrong are not matters of objective fact but instead are matters of personal, private taste.
The most important point, though, is that regardless of whether or not anyone actually says that morals are matters of personal tastes, my contention is that that is the logical consequence of some things they *do* say. If morality is not an objective feature of the world and is not an element of knowledge, connect the logical dots…that leads to the conclusion that flouting them is no more serious than eating salad with a spoon, or choosing chocolate cake over apple pie, or flouting the herd instinct.
ME: I don’t know why Kevin is making this point. Am I to believe that just because astrologers et al believe it and say it, that means it’s rubbish? Astrologers also believe that if you jump off a 20 story building, you’ll fall. Does that mean gravity is bogus?
YOU: > Were you totally high when you typed that paragraph?
–ahhh, perhaps. That was a bit of a typo. It should have read, “Astrologers also believe in gravity–that if you jump off a 20 story building, you will fall. Does that mean gravity is bogus?…” The point was that just because crazy people believe it, doesn't make it wrong. Sure, astrologers believe some crazy things, but that doesn't mean everything they believe is bogus.
>just like Christians believe that if you follow a certain set of rules, after you die, your spirit is going to this other realm called Heaven (another totally unfounded belief.) These are faith-based beliefs.
–You are trying to equate astrology with Christian beliefs…but Christianity can be historically verified/deverified, and evidence can be offered for its truth or falsehood….It's validity depends upon historical foundations, which cannot be said of astrology. It's not just “blind faith.”
–Plus, it is not true that the Bible teaches that if you follow certain rules you go to heaven when you die. Have you read the Bible? Where are you getting this? (I clarified this, hopefully sufficiently, in our personal emails back and forth.)
>This “naturalism” is responsible for all of the technology you see around you. It’s responsible for the computer that you’re reading this message on, and on all of the networks which has carried this message to you. If you’ve ever been to the doctor, it’s responsible for the medicine you’ve taken. It’s responsible for the structures that your house is built upon, and the reason why your car starts when you put the key in the ignition.
–How so? How have all those things been derived from Naturalism as I defined it above? They are derived from the scientific method of observation of the natural world, hypothesis, testing, confirmation/disconfirmation, etc, but this is not Naturalism, nor does it confirm Naturalism. What works are scientific hypothesis, and this is different from N-ism.
Besides, many scientists of the past have been theists (Galileo, Kepler, Bacon…Francis Collins, of the Human Genome Project, is a present day theist….I can come up with many others whose significant discoveries are most definitely not due to Naturalism) who studied the natural realm because they believed it to operate according to certain regularities which were the product of an intelligent designer. Modern science arose from theistic convictions.
The following paper by U Tx prof Robert Koons might be helpful:
>The impetus is on you to prove it (Naturalism) wrong. Do so, if you can
–Kevin, the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. I have made claims and so have a burden of proof to shoulder, but so have you, and it is quite unfair to think that I'm the only guy who has some 'splainin to do. In the case of Naturalism, as I've already pointed out, it is not a default view–it makes claims about the nature of the reality, morality, what makes a human being, and what counts as knowledge. These are claims that must be substantiated, just like theistic claims about reality et al must be substantiated.
ME: Basically, if a boy grows up without a father (and vice versa for girls), his development and growth as a person will most likely be severely stunted.
YOU: > Prove it. Give me some data on that.
–First, some experience: come teach where I teach. The fatherless rate astronomical in the inner city–above 70% according to many studies. It is absolutely clear that most boys at my school have no clue what it means to be a man. Ya, ya, I know what they say about correlation not being causation, but in this case it's a stretch to think the correlation is totally coincidental.
As far as data, check out these articles:
That should get you started.
March 26th, 2011 @ 3:10 am
As the guy above said…wikipedia is your answer!