Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Coito ergo sum]

Why should "we" encourage faith schools to each their faith as truth? Why do "we" want them to propagate their faith? I mean - I agree with the fact that they ought not be censored by law. But, that doesn't mean "we" are obligated to affirmatively "encourage" their tripe, does it?

If they are funded by the State, they shouldn't be teaching religion as truth at all, let alone a whole host of religions. First of all, there isn't the time in the day to dedicate to teaching kids all of the world religions "as truths." When would there be the time for math, reading, science, and other classes. And, grammar school is too young to be taught comparative religious studies.

Evolutionary biology is a high school level class, and usually only part of the biology class in one year.

To suggest that most of us in the west are taught, in grammar school, each of the world religions "as truth" seems to me to be clearly false. I doubt even a tiny percentage of children going to public grammar schools are taught even a cursory survey of world religions at that age.

In science class, not much science would be done if we had to go through each religion's archaic ideas of how the world was created, and how humans came to be. That would be just plain silly to do that.

Well you're responding to a lot of suggestions I haven't made there.

You did say we should encourage them, didn't you?

[

When I was at high school, the school devoted 1 hour a fortnight to religious eduction. That seems about right to me. The curriculum was entirely christian. That seems wrong to me. It should have been split between 5 or 6 different religions. Maybe it is now, times have changed.

One hour every two weeks is simply not sufficient learn a darn thing about 5 or 6 different religions. And, in my view, there should be no religious education in high school. In the US, it is basically illegal, except in the case of a comparative religions course which is carefully set up so as not to proselytize or teach anything "as truth."

Why waste time at the start of each lesson saying "this is untrue, but islam says this, that is untrue, christianity says that". Just go ahead and teach the darn stuff for an hour a fortnight. The very act of teaching contradictions is a way of inviting minds to become agile in seeking truths.

Or, one could just leave religious education for the Church, Mosque, Temple, or Synagogue. Schools are simply not equipped to teach all the different religions properly, and 5 or 6 different religions are insufficient. There are dozens of significant denominations of Christianity, many versions of Judaism, several versians of Islam, several schools of Buddhism and Taoism, Shinto, different versions of Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Druze, and on down the line. It's a waste of time, and preference will always, inevitably be given to some religions over others.

[

The only reason to teach creationism in biology would be a) because it introduces controversy and b) because it helps people firm up the science to answer its critics.

There is no reason to teach creationism in biology, as it has nothing at all to do with biology.

[

Incidentally I also think literature, stories, plays, history should all be taught as truth. Children should not be treated as if they all have a learning disability. The more contradictions are thrown into reality curriculum the better.

Literature and stories should not be taught as truth, because they aren't true. They should be taught as literature, stories, plays, etc. History should be taught as the best understanding we have of the truth, based on the evidence. To call it "truth" is to miss the point of history.

[

Or do you think there is only one truth, and it is "ours"?

No, but I don't think Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises is "true," and Shakespeare's Hamlet is not "true." We don't know the 100% truth about what happened at a given historical event. Take the Roman victory at Alesia where Julius Caesar defeated Vercingetorix. We have the writings of Julius Caesar and his contemporaries, as well as some other Roman historians. We have a good deal of historical evidence of the seige of Alesia and the Gallic attack on the Roman positions, and the building of the wall around Alesia, etc. But, we don't know the full "truth" of what happened. We know historical truth. But, we do have sufficient evidence to know that it happened, when, and that there is good reason to believe much of what Caesar wrote about it. But, that is about it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It's a shame that any school would waste its time teaching religion in any other context but a historical one.

That might be the ideal but I can see value in teaching about it in a sociological framing as well. Children do need to know the nature and implications of religious belief as much as they need to know the nature and implications of the law, or government - because it will, in some way, impact on their lives.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... -michigan/

[Bella Fortuna]

It's a shame that any school would waste its time teaching religion in any other context but a historical one.

That might be the ideal but I can see value in teaching about it in a sociological framing as well. Children do need to know the nature and implications of religious belief as much as they need to know the nature and implications of the law, or government - because it will, in some way, impact on their lives.

I think that's what I partially meant as well but you phrase it better than I did - in comparison with religious instruction/indoctrination.

[Coito ergo sum]

Does anyone actually disagree with the assertion that Muslim schools teaching children to believe the Koran over evidence are awful and deserving of significant criticism?

That's a very complex question involving personal freedoms for everyone. I don't have an answer so I neither agree nor disagree for the time being.

The question really isn't that complex.

Actually it is.

Good. Explain it, then.

Complex questions are not incapable of being answered. If the answer can't be explained yes/no, then give a broader answer. Just throwing up one's hands and saying "it's a complex question" and then leaving it at that doesn't do anything to further the conversation. What do you mean? Do you disagree with the assertion that Muslim schools teaching children to believe the Koran over evidence can be a good thing sometimes? If so, when and why?

[Exi5tentialist]

I qualify my agreement with Exi2 in that teaching something as truth involves belief on behalf of the teacher. A science teacher can believe the science. An RE teacher cannot believe the whole spectrum of religions.

The best literature teachers are the ones who believe the literature. I know this is a sacred cow to new atheists, the old "I am a fiction writer but I do not believe my fiction is true" slogan. But the teacher of Hamlet or Macbeth who believes the Hamlet or Macbeth characters is the best kind of teacher to have. You have to believe the characters to make it alive. And I'm consciously rejecting the concept of suspension of disbelief - that's just a middle class pretension!

So okay, an RE Teacher can't believe the whole spectrum of religions. Maybe he can, if he has some weird new age unifying philosophy. But even if he doesn't, it doesn't matter. He can still play the roles. Get different speakers in. Have a bit of imagination!

[Coito ergo sum]

What about teaching about reptilian overlords, bigfoot, and Unarianism? They're as crackpot as Christianity, Islam, et. Al. When it comes down to it there are only so many hours in the day, and choices must be made about what's most useful/beneficial to teach. It's a shame that any school would waste its time teaching religion in any other context but a historical one.

I think RD is right on on this issue.

Well you have to make a judgement. Teaching is about preparing people to go out into the world. How many people in the world believe in reptilian overlords? [/Depending on the response it's fine to devote 5 minutes to it. Or less.

As I said, 1 hour a fortnight for religious education - what's the big deal?

Waste of time. If people want to chase a religion, they can do it at their religious institution...

I say again, the point I'm making is about pluralism, making people cope with contradictory truths. That's how this debate should move forward, not Dawkins's way: teach only the truth according to Dr Dawkins.

Dawkins does not oppose learning about religion in a comparative religion class. He opposes teaching the Koran as science. That's like opposing teaching Aesop's Fables as science.

Incidentally I went to a christian state junior school. I did not learn nearly as much as I should have done about Greek, Norse and Roman mythology. However I distinctly remember being taught the origins of the word "Thursday" at the age of about 6 or 7. It was a passing mention, not a formal lesson, but being introduced to the very idea of an alternative God to the Christian one presented me with an intellectual challenge. It enabled me to step back from the majority of the christian teaching and weigh things up. I think this kind of experience is universal in the west. So yes, I do think that is the way we are taught, and it is how we become critical of our teaching, and it is the teaching method we should be promoting in the west, not contracting in favour of just one received truth.

Etymology is fine for an English language class in school.

[Coito ergo sum]

I qualify my agreement with Exi2 in that teaching something as truth involves belief on behalf of the teacher. A science teacher can believe the science. An RE teacher cannot believe the whole spectrum of religions.

The best literature teachers are the ones who believe the literature. I know this is a sacred cow to new atheists, the old "I am a fiction writer but I do not believe my fiction is true" slogan. But the teacher of Hamlet or Macbeth who believes the Hamlet or Macbeth characters is the best kind of teacher to have.

Where is this teacher that believes the Hamlet and Macbeth characters actually existed?

You have to believe the characters to make it alive.

Please clarify what you mean by "believe the characters." Do you mean, believe they actually existed at some point?

And I'm consciously rejecting the concept of suspension of disbelief - that's just a middle class pretension!

So, you don't suspend your disbelief?

So okay, an RE Teacher can't believe the whole spectrum of religions. Maybe he can, if he has some weird new age unifying philosophy. But even if he doesn't, it doesn't matter. He can still play the roles. Get different speakers in. Have a bit of imagination!

Silly.

[DaveD]

You have to believe the characters to make it alive. And I'm consciously rejecting the concept of suspension of disbelief - that's just a middle class pretension!

Bullshit.
Do you really think someone who appreciates fiction believes absolutely that it's factual?
Do you think that fiction is factual?
Do you know what the word fiction means?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's a shame that any school would waste its time teaching religion in any other context but a historical one.

That might be the ideal but I can see value in teaching about it in a sociological framing as well. Children do need to know the nature and implications of religious belief as much as they need to know the nature and implications of the law, or government - because it will, in some way, impact on their lives.

...sure...but, that doesn't mean that we should teach the Korean "over" actual scientific evidence. Like, that Adam was created out of a clot of blood. That is not an alternative theory of how humans came to be. That's the alien nonsense Dawkins is objecting to. He's not objecting to learning about religion or comparative religion classes.

[Bella Fortuna]

It's a shame that any school would waste its time teaching religion in any other context but a historical one.

That might be the ideal but I can see value in teaching about it in a sociological framing as well. Children do need to know the nature and implications of religious belief as much as they need to know the nature and implications of the law, or government - because it will, in some way, impact on their lives.

...sure...but, that doesn't mean that we should teach the Korean "over" actual scientific evidence. Like, that Adam was created out of a clot of blood. That is not an alternative theory of how humans came to be. That's the alien nonsense Dawkins is objecting to. He's not objecting to learning about religion or comparative religion classes.

That damn Korean...

[Bella Fortuna]

I qualify my agreement with Exi2 in that teaching something as truth involves belief on behalf of the teacher. A science teacher can believe the science. An RE teacher cannot believe the whole spectrum of religions.

The best literature teachers are the ones who believe the literature. I know this is a sacred cow to new atheists, the old "I am a fiction writer but I do not believe my fiction is true" slogan. But the teacher of Hamlet or Macbeth who believes the Hamlet or Macbeth characters is the best kind of teacher to have.

Where is this teacher that believes the Hamlet and Macbeth characters actually existed?

You have to believe the characters to make it alive.

Please clarify what you mean by "believe the characters." Do you mean, believe they actually existed at some point?

And I'm consciously rejecting the concept of suspension of disbelief - that's just a middle class pretension!

So, you don't suspend your disbelief?

So okay, an RE Teacher can't believe the whole spectrum of religions. Maybe he can, if he has some weird new age unifying philosophy. But even if he doesn't, it doesn't matter. He can still play the roles. Get different speakers in. Have a bit of imagination!

Silly.

This is all kind of what I was thinking. If you "believe" literature in the same way you "believe" religion... In both cases one might need one's head examined.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

LOTR wasn't a documentary?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It's a shame that any school would waste its time teaching religion in any other context but a historical one.

That might be the ideal but I can see value in teaching about it in a sociological framing as well. Children do need to know the nature and implications of religious belief as much as they need to know the nature and implications of the law, or government - because it will, in some way, impact on their lives.

...sure...but, that doesn't mean that we should teach the Korean "over" actual scientific evidence. Like, that Adam was created out of a clot of blood. That is not an alternative theory of how humans came to be. That's the alien nonsense Dawkins is objecting to. He's not objecting to learning about religion or comparative religion classes.

Did I say he was? I was simply responding to Bella's point.

[Magicziggy]

The value of a high quality comparative religious education maybe to counter the heavily biased one kids get from home.