Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[HomerJay]

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

So we expose all kids to this shit in order to conduct remedial work on the nutters?

Objectively delivered comparative religious education is important.

I'm afraid I would consider this complete and utter bollocks

Since, by objective delivery I mean facts and discussion about religion as a cultural reality (as distinct from religious "facts" imposed as truths), delivered by qualified people who do not have a religious agenda, No, I'm not arguing for a blank cheque to the nutters. Thus should end that concern for you.

No, it doesn't end my concerns in the slightest.

You are still arguing for a blank cheque.

I went to my son's parent evening last night, he is six and had drawn a picture of the Torah and added comments that it is the jews holy book, is very important to them and has five books.

At age fucking six there is no need or benefit to him knowing about the Torah. I haven't met a jew in 25 years and have only met a handful in my life time (jews are geographically concentrated in the UK, in my city they closed a jewish school due to lack of numbers and many moved to different areas to be with more jews).

You are enabling this shit by suggesting there should be Religious Education but without qualifying the content, I said before content and delivery is all important.

In your 'objective religion education', you would still have six year olds fed this rubbish, it's a blank cheque until you qualify it.

Like I said, without qualification, without an exact idea about what you are talking about, without seeing how you envisage this in a curriculum, I see this as a cultural overlay, you may not but it happens so often that the numbers are on my side. If it was anything less than an overlay you would have been able to produce a detailed response, which you haven't.

[Robert_S]

All that said, I don't just trust this to schools with my children. I am alert to any suggestion of religion (or any other potentially agenda based subject) being taught at their schools and am immediately on to the school for details of what is going on.

This!


I think school boards should, upon hearing about any proposal for religious education in schools, have an instinct to hide behind their desks and chairs. If a teacher deems it relevant to the artistic, literary or historical context of the subject matter, then a little background should be fine, but dedicated time for religion is something I'm slowly becoming less in favor of.

Mainly because, as you pointed out above, there is too much potential for abuse. But also because I'm really having doubts about the practical value of knowing this stuff. For me, religious thought was like the Sirius Cybernetics Corperation. The superficial flaws covered up the deep flaws for a long time during my journey out of the thicket.

[charlou]

Why should we grant it any greater importance by treating it as any more daunting than any other mythology/fiction?

I was fascinated by mythology (along with other cultures and nature) as a child. It helped me to discern fact from fiction, and broadened my mind.

[Robert_S]

Why should we grant it any greater importance by treating it as any more daunting than any other mythology/fiction?

I would think the chances of getting a presenter with a slanted view would be greater with a currently widely believed mythology than with a dead religion.

[charlou]

Excellent post, Charlou, I agree with the positions you express...

I, of course, am in a somewhat compromised position. However, a key factor for me is that science education at my school is not affected by the faith aspect. In reality, it is probably the "separate magisteria" idea, but as long as I can teach the science as I want to, I can survive...

I admire your pragmatic tolerance and your sense of vocation, Jim. Without it the students you teach would be the poorer, I think.

[Exi5tentialist]

Atheism frees us up to explore all possible worlds. It's therefore inconsistent to exclude a world in which there is a god from the curriculum. That just leaves students as restricted not believing in god than they were under a system that believed in him.

[HomerJay]

Atheism frees us up to explore all possible worlds. It's therefore inconsistent to exclude a world in which there is a god from the curriculum. That just leaves students as restricted not believing in god than they were under a system that believed in him.

Nonsense.

Atheism isn't an ism. Category error.

A curriculum without God is secular not atheistic.

There are an infinite amount of possible worlds that kids can explore, it simply isn't possible to 'explore all possible worlds'.

[Exi5tentialist]

Atheism isn't an ism.

Your logic circuits appear to be faulty

[Jason]

Atheism frees us up to explore all possible worlds. It's therefore inconsistent to exclude a world in which there is a god from the curriculum. That just leaves students as restricted not believing in god than they were under a system that believed in him.

Nonsense.

Atheism isn't an ism. Category error.

A curriculum without God is secular not atheistic.

There are an infinite amount of possible worlds that kids can explore, it simply isn't possible to 'explore all possible worlds'.

That's quite possibly the dumbest line of reasoning I've read on these forums yet.

Null is a valid category for starters. So your first statement is dead wrong right off the bat, then you top it off with some condescending rubbish.

A curriculum which deliberately excludes God or God(s) is inherently atheistic as it promotes the lack of belief in God or Gods by its very exclusion of him/her/it/them.

Possible worlds? Not possible to explore them all? No, I suppose if there is an infinite amount it is not - given we have a finite lifespan and even less of that is spent as a 'kid'. Unnecessarily obvious statement is unnecessarily obvious. Error of saying something dumb.

[Coito ergo sum]

Atheism frees us up to explore all possible worlds. It's therefore inconsistent to exclude a world in which there is a god from the curriculum. That just leaves students as restricted not believing in god than they were under a system that believed in him.

History
Geography
Arithmetic/mathematics
Earth Science
Biology
Chemistry
Algebra
English
Spanish
French
Home Economics
Typing
Computers/computer programming
Geometry
Physics
Calculus
Gym class/physical education
Reading
Writing
Literature
Philosophy
Statistics

..... where the hell do gods have to be in the curriculum in order for it to be well rounded?

By not having gods in our Physics class, we are no more "restricting" the students than not including Aesop's fables or masturbation techniques in Physics class....

What class are you suggesting gods be taught in?

[Exi5tentialist]

Atheism frees us up to explore all possible worlds. It's therefore inconsistent to exclude a world in which there is a god from the curriculum. That just leaves students as restricted not believing in god than they were under a system that believed in him.

Nonsense.

Atheism isn't an ism. Category error.

A curriculum without God is secular not atheistic.

There are an infinite amount of possible worlds that kids can explore, it simply isn't possible to 'explore all possible worlds'.

That's quite possibly the dumbest line of reasoning I've read on these forums yet.

Null is a valid category for starters. So your first statement is dead wrong right off the bat, then you top it off with some condescending rubbish.

A curriculum which deliberately excludes God or God(s) is inherently atheistic as it promotes the lack of belief in God or Gods by its very exclusion of him/her/it/them.

Possible worlds? Not possible to explore them all? No, I suppose if there is an infinite amount it is not - given we have a finite lifespan and even less of that is spent as a 'kid'. Unnecessarily obvious statement is unnecessarily obvious. Error of saying something dumb.

Sorry, I don't see the 'dumbness' of my reasoning, please explain this more rationally. My post referred to the principle of freedom to explore all possible worlds, not the practicality of doing so, that's a bit of a red herring.

[Coito ergo sum]

Freedom to explore all possible worlds does not require that we blather on about gods in a geography class...

[HomerJay]

Atheism frees us up to explore all possible worlds. It's therefore inconsistent to exclude a world in which there is a god from the curriculum. That just leaves students as restricted not believing in god than they were under a system that believed in him.

Nonsense.

Atheism isn't an ism. Category error.

A curriculum without God is secular not atheistic.

There are an infinite amount of possible worlds that kids can explore, it simply isn't possible to 'explore all possible worlds'.

That's quite possibly the dumbest line of reasoning I've read on these forums yet.

A curriculum which deliberately excludes God or God(s) is inherently atheistic as it promotes the lack of belief in God or Gods by its very exclusion of him/her/it/them.

Damn, I've been beaten into second place by this little gem of poo.

[Jason]

Atheism frees us up to explore all possible worlds. It's therefore inconsistent to exclude a world in which there is a god from the curriculum. That just leaves students as restricted not believing in god than they were under a system that believed in him.

Nonsense.

Atheism isn't an ism. Category error.

A curriculum without God is secular not atheistic.

There are an infinite amount of possible worlds that kids can explore, it simply isn't possible to 'explore all possible worlds'.

That's quite possibly the dumbest line of reasoning I've read on these forums yet.

Null is a valid category for starters. So your first statement is dead wrong right off the bat, then you top it off with some condescending rubbish.

A curriculum which deliberately excludes God or God(s) is inherently atheistic as it promotes the lack of belief in God or Gods by its very exclusion of him/her/it/them.

Possible worlds? Not possible to explore them all? No, I suppose if there is an infinite amount it is not - given we have a finite lifespan and even less of that is spent as a 'kid'. Unnecessarily obvious statement is unnecessarily obvious. Error of saying something dumb.

Sorry, I don't see the 'dumbness' of my reasoning, please explain this more rationally. My post referred to the principle of freedom to explore all possible worlds, not the practicality of doing so, that's a bit of a red herring.

I was responding to Homers post.

[Exi5tentialist]

Atheism frees us up to explore all possible worlds. It's therefore inconsistent to exclude a world in which there is a god from the curriculum. That just leaves students as restricted not believing in god than they were under a system that believed in him.

History
Geography
Arithmetic/mathematics
Earth Science
Biology
Chemistry
Algebra
English
Spanish
French
Home Economics
Typing
Computers/computer programming
Geometry
Physics
Calculus
Gym class/physical education
Reading
Writing
Literature
Philosophy
Statistics

..... where the hell do gods have to be in the curriculum in order for it to be well rounded?

By not having gods in our Physics class, we are no more "restricting" the students than not including Aesop's fables or masturbation techniques in Physics class....

What class are you suggesting gods be taught in?

Gods should be taught in all of them. What's the point in doing a French class if you don't know what dieu means? By the way calculus, statistics, arithmetic, algebra and mathematics can all be included in mathematics, which rationalises your list a little bit, making it less dramatically long. You could add religion into philosophy, in fact you would have to to make it more well-rounded.