Neutrality theory

FutureTrackStar

Registered Member
#1
I think we all know what the (religious) neutrality theory is. It's that stance that all teachers must take in public schools. That idea that "oh, well God may exist, He may not... but we're going to teach without talking about God, because we are being religiously neutral".

Well, take a look at some math. Let there be a premise, P, which ALWAYS implies something else, Q. keep in mind, ~ means NOT.

So, if P then Q. Therefore, if ~Q then ~P... ALWAYS.

Well, according to Christians, God (as the Bible teaches) had a very fundamental role in structuring the universe. Therefore, He is important to every subject. The Bible also teaches that everything bears testimony to Him, further support for His importance in every subject.

So, if you say that ~(God is important in every subject) then you are saying ~(God is the Creator). How is that neutral?

Plus, the neutrality theory raises, above God, an ethical standard that justifies ignoring His Presence. How is that neutral?
 

Mirage

Administrator
Staff member
V.I.P.
#3
Take this back a step though.

People say "We can't promote a religion".

But, what about a "belief?" Can we promote a belief? Apparently so, because by not promoting one thing, another is invariably promoted, whether it's on purpose or due to lack of other ideas being promoted.

For example, when people use the argument "Atheism is not a religion", they are correct. But, it is a belief. How then can we justify promoting one belief over another? Why not just say, no holds barred, learn to live within a diverse society and carry on?
 

FutureTrackStar

Registered Member
#4
alright fine i got some syntax wrong.

So.. example: If and only if it's a clear, sunny day: it is not cloudy. Therefore, if it is cloudy (~Q) then it is not a clear, sunny day (~P).

Am I right?

So, when teachers claim that God is not important to a subject (astronomy for example) then they are claiming that God has no fundamental role in the structure of the subject (again, astronomy). Wouldn't you agree that the very fundamentals of a subject are important to the subject? Well when you say that God is not important to the subject you are saying that God has no fundamental role in that subject, thus declaring that He is not the Creator of all things.

That was my only point.

Am I right?
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#5
I think God is talked about in schools: in religion classes. Most of math, science, etc; is taught in public schools devoid of much in the way of philosophy. You could make a case for allowing teachers to teach dogma in history class, but then you have to accept the risk of atheist teachers doing the same. I really don't think religious people know quite the can of worms they're opening by pushing this stuff. Given the general agnosticism that seems to reign in the academic world, pushing religion out into the open just makes it a big giant target.
 

AnitaKnapp

It's not me, it's you.
V.I.P.
#6
alright fine i got some syntax wrong.

So.. example: If and only if it's a clear, sunny day: it is not cloudy. Therefore, if it is cloudy (~Q) then it is not a clear, sunny day (~P).

Am I right?

So, when teachers claim that God is not important to a subject (astronomy for example) then they are claiming that God has no fundamental role in the structure of the subject (again, astronomy). Wouldn't you agree that the very fundamentals of a subject are important to the subject? Well when you say that God is not important to the subject you are saying that God has no fundamental role in that subject, thus declaring that He is not the Creator of all things.

That was my only point.

Am I right?
Why should any god be taught as fact until it is a proven fact?
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#7
FutureTrackStar said:
alright fine i got some syntax wrong.
No. You actually didn't. I was wrong. If P then Q, does imply ~P if ~Q. It just doesn't imply P if Q. That's where I was confusing myself. Sorry.
 

Sim

Registered Member
#8
There is a fundamental difference between science and belief.

According to scientific method, a claim has to be proven true before it can be assumed as true. If you claim something, the burden of proof is with you, not with the one disagreeing with your claim. So if you claim "there is a God", you have to prove it, or your claim is void.

God cannot be proven. You can only *believe* in God.

So the question is whether you want schools to teach science, or belief. I go for science. Belief is a personal matter, and should be. And most important, science should never be confused with belief.
 
Last edited:

FutureTrackStar

Registered Member
#9
Edit: This post isn't just for Hybrix it's for everybody:

Hybrix, its because there aren't really hundreds or even dozens of kinds of religions, there are only two beliefs:

Either you believe that the universe was created by an infinite personal Creator who is unbound and obeys only Himself and is in accordance with only His Perfect Character..

or..

You believe that there may be "God(s)", but He/They is/are part of this universe, i.e. He/They obey(s) some kind of impersonal force, such as chance or fate or evolution or "The Force". This is the "Continuity of Being" idea which basically says that ultimately there is not a person who is in control.

It all comes down to the question: Is that ultimate thing that is in control a person or not?

The neutrality theory is itself not neutral because it says that God's existence is not important to anything being taught. Obviously, if an infinite Person is in control, and did create all things, then He is very, very important to any subject.

Or do you not agree?
 
Last edited:

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#10
I'd say that even if God were to exist, his existence would be incidental to many of your more pragmatic subjects like math and science. Perhaps at the college level it could be more important, but there you're dealing with a whole different scenario where professors are pretty much given free reign, insofar as they keep the respect of their peers and institution.