Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Ronja]

"Theology is a legitimate academic subject in its own right... I really don't see what's so controversial about teachers of theology teaching from their own perspective..."

.

I'm going to bed. My most heartfelt appreciation to those who can take the time and have the energy to continue debating Exi5 also tonight.

[Exi5tentialist]

No. No preachers in schools.

You mean no pluralism in schools. That is my argument: schools need pluralism. This conversation keeps drifting away from that, strangely.

Very fond of telling others what they mean, aren't you...

Pluralism does not require preaching. No preachers simply means no indoctrination, not an absence of useful information about religion as an important part of the history of our species... Preachers are not there to educate, they are there to snare new members of the deluded faithful...

And I don't even mean teaching about religion in a sneering, sceptical sense, just a neutral account. Your argument that religious information is only valid if presented by a "true believer" is abject nonsense in any educational setting.

Plenty of experience in teaching, have we?

It's interesting that you accuse me of telling others what they mean, and then you go and do exactly the same thing by saying I am arguing that information is only valid if presented by a "true believer". Actually I don't argue that. My argument is that religious information will probably be better taught if it is presented by a variety of "true believers". Certainly if a teacher is teaching religious information from an impartial point of view, which is a view I think is impossible for anyone to achieve anyway, then having just one teacher droning on all year about the subject in such a detached way, lacking in passion and commitment, is not (in my view) going to sink in as well as if a school were lucky enough to have five or six representatives of different faiths presenting different views.

Incidentally the logic of saying that if you teach one religion you automatically have to teach all the different religions and sub-religions so you might as well teach none is really rather flawed. You wouldn't apply the same principle to languages, history or works of literature. It is not a sustainable argument.

[Exi5tentialist]

"Theology is a legitimate academic subject in its own right... I really don't see what's so controversial about teachers of theology teaching from their own perspective..."

.

I'm going to bed. My most heartfelt appreciation to those who can take the time and have the energy to continue debating Exi5 also tonight.

Theology degrees are offered by many of the world's respectable universities. They are valued by many employers as an indicator of high academic achievement, because they demonstrate that the graduate has the kind of skills in research, interpretation, presentation, and many other areas, that are valuable in many work settings.

Really Ronja, if you are going to demand rational discussion and supported argument then you are going to have to put forward a better case than "I'm going to bed."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Theology is a legitimate academic subject in its own right... I really don't see what's so controversial about teachers of theology teaching from their own perspective..."

.

I'm going to bed. My most heartfelt appreciation to those who can take the time and have the energy to continue debating Exi5 also tonight.

Theology degrees are offered by many of the world's respectable universities. They are valued by many employers as an indicator of high academic achievement, because they demonstrate that the graduate has the kind of skills in research, interpretation, presentation, and many other areas, that are valuable in many work settings.

Really Ronja, if you are going to demand rational discussion and supported argument then you are going to have to put forward a better case than "I'm going to bed."

How about less bullshit?

[Exi5tentialist]

Sorry, didn't get your Hemingway / Hamlet reference, I dropped english lit at 13 too.

You'd be smarter if you didn't drop those things.

Roll up! Roll up! CHEAPSHOTS Я US are open for business!

[Exi5tentialist]

How about less bullshit?

Great idea. Stop posting it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How about less bullshit?

Great idea. Stop posting it.

Is that a promise?

[Exi5tentialist]

How about less bullshit?

Great idea. Stop posting it.

Is that a promise?

You tell me, Chuckles.

[Exi5tentialist]

Comparative religions can wait until age 18. There is plenty of "history," "English literature and composition," math, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, biology, chemistry, physics, and a whole host of other things that are more important to know about.

You'd keep people in ignorance about religion until 18? They're not going to be very well prepared when it hits them, are they? That sounds to me like a recipe for a nation of gullibles. Can you imagine such a scenario? My, that's scary.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How about less bullshit?

Great idea. Stop posting it.

Is that a promise?

You tell me, Chuckles.

Ah, foresworn already?

[Coito ergo sum]

I am all in favour of religion being taught in schools but
providing that it is done as a humanity and not as a science
I am also in favour of all variations in all spectrums - religious
political, philosophical, economic - being taught so that pupils are
aware of such differences. But teachers should not over step the mark
and impose their own interpretation. And this applies equally to atheists as
well as theists. Pupils should be taught how to think, not what to think beyond
basic factual information. It is the job of the teacher to educate not to indoctrinate
and most probably avoid that anyway. But once a pupil leaves the class, and returns home
they can have everything they learnt dismissed. Yet parents too have a responsibility to educate

Well personally I tend to think that that anything can be a science, where science refers to systematic
study,

Science is a systematic study, but not all systematic studies are science.

or a subject-area that has its own internal systematic structure.

Science is a subject-area that has its own internal systematic structure, but not all subjects that have internal systematic structures are science.

After all, we freely use the
terms political science and social science, I really do not see anything particularly controversial
about the scientific study of the sciences of religion.

Study of religion qua religion is not a problem. Taking religious principles over scientific facts or theories is and ought to be very controversial.

Theology is a legitimate academic
subject in its own right, and from what I gather is intellectually very demanding.

As are art, theater and home economics.

Theology is not, however, an appropriate subject for grammar school and high school students, and it is sufficient that people go to a seminary or a religious college for their theology degrees.

As for teachers 'overstepping the mark' as you call it ('imposing their own
interpretation') I don't think you've really hit the nail on the head of
what you're trying to say. After all, we expect maths and physics
teachers to teach their interpretation most of the time,

We don't, actually. I've taken math courses up through and including differential equations, and I took three semesters of college level physics. There isn't a lot of question of "interpretation." Physics, for example, is mostly about equations and solving math problems. What is this "their interpretation" you're talking about?

I really
don't see what's so controversial about teachers of theology
teaching from their own perspective.

Nothing wrong with that, except if it's in physics, chemistry, calculus or biology classes. And, theology is not a proper course for kids in high school and grammar school. They aren't ready for it. You have to go through the prerequisites of basic history and social sciences, literature, and the like, before you get to "Theology," and there just isn't sufficient time to devote to the Theologies of every or even the major theologies in the world.

And again I think
you have a very arbitrary boundary between what is
education and what is indoctrination. Personally I
think in principle the two things are exactly the
same. No one has a monopoly of truth, surely?

Very true, which is why we ought not teach "religion" in public schools, because religions lay claim to the "truth." Science doesn't lay claim to the "truth," it lays claim to the best evidence and the prevailing theory. History doesn't lay claim to the truth; it lays claim to the best evidence and the historical record. The "truth" is something else.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sorry, didn't get your Hemingway / Hamlet reference, I dropped english lit at 13 too.

You'd be smarter if you didn't drop those things.

Roll up! Roll up! CHEAPSHOTS Я US are open for business!

Well, I didn't mean it as a cheap shot. I don't see how it makes one better educated to "drop" English Lit at age 13. Had you read and studied all the major works of English literature by age 13? One of the things about education is that it's not primarily about "passion" and whether someone "believes" this or that. It's about study. Sitting down and reading the material and figuring it out. If you're doing math, the way to learn it is not by listening to impassioned teachers, but rather to do math problems and figure out how to work them out, and repetition of that work. This is coming from someone who has succeeded in algebra, geometry, trigonometry, Calculus (three semesters), and Differential Equations, as well as multiple semesters of college Physics, two semesters of college Chemistry, and other courses, like Thermodynamics. Theology would of been of very little help, and is completely POINTLESS in relation to the scientific and mathematical courses that I listed. That doesn't mean theology isn't valuable in its own right. It is. But, it is POINTLESS when it comes to biology, chemistry and physics. It literally has FUCK ALL to say about those subjects. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this. It would NOT help. It would not lend perspective. It would not do a damn thing except perhaps add confusion to start teaching theological principles along with or along side of chemistry, calculus, biology, physics or the like.

I gather the fact that you appear to have pretty much dropped school at the age of 13 probably is the cause of your misapprehension of the content of all this subject matter. It's like the Creationists who say that this or that was predicted in the Bible or the Koran, and science is just "catching up" to the writers of the ancient texts. Nothing can be further from the truth. Nothing -- repeat -- nothing - in these ancient texts is of scientific value. Not a damn thing, including but not limited to the stories of creation and the origins of mankind. They are stories. That's not to say that they are of no value -- they are just of no SCIENTIFIC value. They have a lot of value as literature, as history, as works of cultural significance, and perhaps even for people's spiritual well-being. Despite all that value, however, they mean motherfuckall in relation to physics or biology.

Capice?

[klr]

"Theology is a legitimate academic subject in its own right... I really don't see what's so controversial about teachers of theology teaching from their own perspective..."

.

I'm going to bed. My most heartfelt appreciation to those who can take the time and have the energy to continue debating Exi5 also tonight.

Theology degrees are offered by many of the world's respectable universities. They are valued by many employers as an indicator of high academic achievement, because they demonstrate that the graduate has the kind of skills in research, interpretation, presentation, and many other areas, that are valuable in many work settings.

Really Ronja, if you are going to demand rational discussion and supported argument then you are going to have to put forward a better case than "I'm going to bed."

Gee, well we can't all live in the same time zone as you.

Anyway, your post is simply "argument from respectability" - and what's more, one presented without a shred of evidence.

[Coito ergo sum]

Comparative religions can wait until age 18. There is plenty of "history," "English literature and composition," math, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, biology, chemistry, physics, and a whole host of other things that are more important to know about.

You'd keep people in ignorance about religion until 18?

No. We don't teach religion in grammar school and high school now, and kids have plenty of religious resources and teaching. I don't live under the mistaken understanding that school is supposed to be the place where people learn everything they ever know.

They're not going to be very well prepared when it hits them, are they?

They'll be just fine, because it would be really rather silly to think that they'd remain ignorant of religion until the debutantes become 18. They get plenty of religion from their parents and churches, temples and mosques, and those are the persons/entities that are uniquely positioned to properly teach such things. It's also a private matter - religion is something that people need to work out on their own.

That sounds to me like a recipe for a nation of gullibles. Can you imagine such a scenario? My, that's scary.

Only if it's a nation where the only input into a child's psyche and knowledge-base comes from the public schools. If that's what you're suggesting is what you'd prefer, then THAT would truly be scary.

As it happens - people learn plenty of religion even though it's not inculcated into them at school -- probably too much, actually.

[Bella Fortuna]

"Theology is a legitimate academic subject in its own right... I really don't see what's so controversial about teachers of theology teaching from their own perspective..."

.

I'm going to bed. My most heartfelt appreciation to those who can take the time and have the energy to continue debating Exi5 also tonight.

Theology degrees are offered by many of the world's respectable universities. They are valued by many employers as an indicator of high academic achievement, because they demonstrate that the graduate has the kind of skills in research, interpretation, presentation, and many other areas, that are valuable in many work settings.

Really Ronja, if you are going to demand rational discussion and supported argument then you are going to have to put forward a better case than "I'm going to bed."

Gee, well we can't all live in the same time zone as you.

Anyway, your post is simply "argument from respectability" - and what's more, one presented without a shred of evidence.

Seems more like argument from arrogance from where I stand...