Science IS appropriate. It's super important too. Whether its taught or not
has a bearing upon what sort of nation you have.
Agreed. As well as how it is taught.
But there's problems here: I read this the other day about Masada and the
Romans. Someone wrote in Wikipedia to the effect "There is no evidence
the defenders of Masada committed suicide." Now that's scholarly, sort of.
But like a lot of scholars this one is implying,or can be read as implying, that
such and such 'never happened.'
Scholarly, perhaps, but not scientific. And given Wiki's nature, perhaps not even scholarly.
However, I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Masada is an interesting topic, and there are issues with the original history of Flavius Josephus that I'm happy to articulate if you are interested. Not falling on any side of the controversy, really, but if you subscribe to the 'traditional' view of the defenders mass suiciding, and some of the other associated 'information' Flavius presented, there are some hard to reconcile considerations.
I'm not a scholar, though. But classical history is a hobby.
This is the problem with the tree of knowledge.
What's the problem? Not quite sure what you meant here, honestly.
People don't have to 'dissect the bible', the course of knowledge taught can
do that without mentioning its name. To the point where you can't read a bible
without applying a different methodology altogether.
I am not advocating Christian education - that age has past, and the results
are starting to come in since about 1900 as to what sort of world we are
making for ourselves. Note my profile stats on this.
There have recently been moves by conservative governments in Australia to better establish curriculum 'acknowledging our Judeo-Christian roots' and in some ways the argument amounted to the Bible and Christianity being profoundly impactful, and that because of this they could (and should) be studied as any other profoundly impactful movement and text would be. I find the whole thing completely disingenuous (studying them 'like other impactful movements and text' would raise plenty of controversies, and I think this is more about re-introducing biblical beliefs into secular schooling). Wasn't sure what you meant, and whether this is the kind of thing you are talking about.
I took the following from your profile, based on your comment earlier...
2001-2020 Gallop figures on approval rates for moral issues in USA:
Gay lesbian 40 to 72%. Baby outside marriage 45 to 66%. Casual sex 53 to 72%.
Divorce 59 to 77%. Polygamy 7 to 20%. Doctor suicide 49 to 51%.
Personal suicide 13 to 18%. Gambling 63 to 71%. Abortion 42 to 44%.
Married men having affairs 7 to 9%.
There is an element of self-fulfilling prophecy in this, though. The further the world moves from Christianity, the more opinion will move from Christian values. That doesn't mean the world is moving away from 'values' per se, though, or becoming less moral.
As a simple example, I see some of the treatment and segregation of LGBTQ+ people (in terms of laws, etc, as well as general treatment) as pretty immoral. So a move of approval/acceptance from 40 to 72% is a move to a MORE moral position, to me. I get that you disagree, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am merely making the point that OF COURSE a society with decreasing levels of Christianity would move away from Christian moral values.
(I'm broad-brushing, and treating Christian's as homogeneous here, when they are obviously not, so apologies)
You also need to account for the willingness of people to volunteer information. 'Married men having affairs' is an interesting one. 9% suggest it's okay now, apparently. But more than 9% of married men
have affairs. And that is NOT new. Heck, more than 9% of women do as well, so not sure why us masculine types are being singled out (but I'll assume it's just the poll question).