I quite like this article, except for Baker's implicit assertion that Science is epistemologically the equivalent of religion, i.e. a 'belief system'. While Feyerabend was quite correct that there is much more to science than 'reason' and the scientific method, I think that he would turn in his grave if he heard that someone was arguing for science education to be subsumed into some kind of nebulous 'Human Belief Systems' subject.

As Baker should be aware, stand-alone science subjects at secondary level are already packed with concepts, theories and facts that are necessary prerequisites, both for studying any of the sciences at a higher level, or even understanding contemporary debates that centre on science (e.g. AGW). By all means introduce a subject about compararative belief systems or religions in which science could be a topic, but to relegate the status of modern science to the equivalent of astrology or relgion would be to do its students a grave disservice, IMHO.

I know only a few truths such as when I cut I will bleed or when I drop a bloody great rock on my foot it will hurt.

The rest are just opinions. Someone's truth will be another's falsehood. Someone's God will be somebody else's false idol.

Religion and science are not the same thing as much as some would cast them in the same basket. Unlike science I have never seen religion adapt or review in light of new evidence.

How is 'truth' defined and who will define it? Can truth be pure? For purity in truth to be obtained surely it can only be done within a neutral environment free of self-fulfilling prophecies.

Scientific advancement migh require some pre-conception, but I would choose science over religion anytime because science,at its heart, seeks 'truth' (if we must use that term) by being open to new ideas or approaches and seeks evidence. Science is willing to change in the face of new evidence or new discoveries.

Religion by its nature cannot. This is not to argue that humans are not spiritual in terms of our need to seek connections with other people and our environment but that it is folly to use the idea of 'truth' in that sphere.

For me (as I can only speak for myself), the only real truth in our value systems is OUTCOME. The set of values by which we live our lives and how we value and display kindness, compassion, hard work, integrity etc. I don't care how each individual achieves that OUTCOME and as individuals maybe it is destined that we come to it in different ways (if we come to it at all).

"Scientists might argue over the effects of, asymmetry during the Big Bang fifteen billion years ago on the senescent universe hundreds of billions from now. On the other hand, Christians have pretty much settled on the idea that Jesus Christ was divine and that there is a trinity, barely acknowledging that there was a period of debate on these issues for several generations before and after Nicaea."

Scientists debate theories because new facts are have to be incorporated into them. Religion is free of that problem, so it can opt for whatever is acceptable at the time. (Do you clip your beard, Peter? Because Leviticus 19:27 is pretty clear that's a no-no. Or have Christians now 'settled' that this is a misprint?)

Of course Baker's basic point is valid: you either believe in the methods of science or you don't. What he and all the other subjectivist commentators overlook, however, is we have a good reason to believe in science, because science WORKS.

Science has given us cars, aeroplanes, central heating, air conditioning, refrigeration, sanitation, computers, insulation, the Internet, wonder drugs, spacecraft, television and ballpoint pens.

Religion, spirituality and mystic woo has given us... what, exactly?

The moment science stops working then I promise to stop believing in it. And, Peter, the moment your God (acting directly, mind you, with one of his limitless supernatural powers, not hiding behind someone else) cures my toothache or fixes my superannuation fund will be the moment I will start believing in HIM.

But I'm not holding my breath.

There is not going to be a great deal of agreement on this topic, I sense, until some baseline definitions are agreed upon.

And I suspect there will be ice-skating in Hades before that happens.

Sells, typically, fires the first dogmatic salvo.

>>Call me old fashioned but I thought education was about the search for truth.<<

If you really were "old-fashioned", Sells, you would recall that education was the means by which people were told what that truth is.

All this "search for truth" malarkey is distinctly modern.

I cannot recall, during my own education, a great deal of discussion about "truth".

We dutifully consumed and regurgitated "facts" in order to gain a pass mark in whatever subject happened to be placed in front of us.

No correspondence was entered into.

We were "taught" that Wellington won at Waterloo thanks to some incredible bravery against an onslaught from the Old Guard.

Prussians have a different view that has something to do with von Blücher outflanking Grouchy at Wavre.

And the French ascribe it to the fact that Napoleon was fat, tired and suffering badly from haemorroids.

Different schools, different facts.

If we really did want education to be a search for truth, Sells wouldn't be so dogmatic about what religion - or indeed, which particular interpretation of one religion among many - actually represents truth.

Much as he should not be so dogmatic about leeches.

>>We do know that penicillin works and leeches do not.<<

http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/archive/2002/mystery/leeches.html

One man's truth is another's transient hypothesis.

Now that's a description - not a definition, note - that we can all agree upon.

I tend to agree with this article. Like it or not, religion has played a dominant role in the history of humanity, and fully deserves to be studied.
Just as no self respecting scientist would consider just one theory on any subject, and refuse to even consider rival theories, students should have the right to learn about all theories of God/divinity/supernature.
There is no doubt in my mind the very first priests/witchdoctors/shamans were scientists in their own way; I've always thought Dawkins would have made a very good priest.
Children should be encouraged to explore all religions, and decide for themselves which one makes sense to them (if any), instead of being told "this is your religion, accept it and shutup".
Just to throw the cat into the henhouse, how many households also say "we vote Labor (or Liberal), accept it and shutup"?

Well, I suppose we could teach children about the variety of human belief systems that have existed. We could also teach them how those systems, with one stand-out exception, have been abject failures. Then we could ask the children which system they want to learn more about - the failures, or the success story?

Shouldn't take long to get an answer.