Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Atheist-Lite]

This is one of my more succesful threads. I started it flippantly with no intention of it becoming so large. I wonder what I got right?

[Jason]

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.

[Twoflower]

This is a reminder to DaveDodo regarding personal attacks for this post: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 81#p998881

This is also a repeated reminder to ALL in this thread to avoid personal attacks and to play nice.

[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. It seems pretty clear that if a school is teaching children to believe the Koran OVER evidence, then that is a bad thing, and deserving of significant criticism.

I don't see what "personal freedoms for everyone" has to do with that. I mean - sure - they have the right and the personal freedom to believe whatever crap they want, and teach their kids what they want. But, isn't it still pretty awful if they choose to exercise that right by teaching nonsense to their children as serious science?

I have a sneaking suspicion if Dawkins stated that some Christian schools were teaching alien nonsense and telling kids to believe the Old Testament over actual evidence, there would not be the resistance to his comment. I have noticed a very distinct tendency in the case of some folks to resist being critical of Islam, because of some fear that they might be affiliating themselves with those they consider bigots. If that's where you're coming from, you can just qualify your answer, can't you?

Can't you just say: Yes, telling kids to believe the Koran over actual evidence is despicable. But, just to be clear, I am not singling out Muslims, and to the extent Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and any other group of religious people are doing the same thing, they suck too.

[Exi5tentialist]

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. It seems pretty clear that if a school is teaching children to believe the Koran OVER evidence, then that is a bad thing, and deserving of significant criticism.

I don't see what "personal freedoms for everyone" has to do with that. I mean - sure - they have the right and the personal freedom to believe whatever crap they want, and teach their kids what they want. But, isn't it still pretty awful if they choose to exercise that right by teaching nonsense to their children as serious science?

I have a sneaking suspicion if Dawkins stated that some Christian schools were teaching alien nonsense and telling kids to believe the Old Testament over actual evidence, there would not be the resistance to his comment. I have noticed a very distinct tendency in the case of some folks to resist being critical of Islam, because of some fear that they might be affiliating themselves with those they consider bigots. If that's where you're coming from, you can just qualify your answer, can't you?

Can't you just say: Yes, telling kids to believe the Koran over actual evidence is despicable. But, just to be clear, I am not singling out Muslims, and to the extent Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and any other group of religious people are doing the same thing, they suck too.

Dawkins takes the wrong approach. Reality is a many-faceted set of competing truths, as I'm sure his book about the magic of it fails to recognise. Surely the biggest strength of the west is pluralism, not censorship. Even children can make up their minds what to believe, at a very young age. There is no greater impetus to liberating an enquiring mind than presenting it with different versions of the truth. We should encourage faith schools to teach their faith as truth; but if they're funded by the state, insist they teach christianity, judaism, hinduism, islam and buddhism as truth as well - along with mathematics, evolutionary biology, physics.

Let's face it, that is the way most of us are taught in the west anyway. We are given contradictory accounts of the truth, not just at school, hence we are forced to make a judgement. We should promote this approach, not jealously guard our own truth as a righteous possession.

[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.

[Magicziggy]

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?

No, I'm wholly behind Dawkins on this.

[Exi5tentialist]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Magicziggy]

I agree with the above. Atheism should be taught as well.

[Ronja]

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?

No, I'm wholly behind Dawkins on this.

Maybe should say this out loud: I agree with Dawkins on this too.

Rationale: Kids will believe whatever an authority figures says until they are 8-14 years old, and when they realize that they have been lied to, they will most likely resent the lies and/or the people who lied, and feel hurt, none of which likely will add much positive to their psycho-social makeup.

And that's the kids who develop approximately normally, e.g. are not beaten, yelled at or threatened into submission and silence.

[Bella Fortuna]

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm with MZ and Ronja. Islamic education needs to be categorized as child abuse.

[Magicziggy]

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.

I do think schools should focus on the skills and knowledge that will help children function in the world. Understanding the make up and history of the planet does include awareness of culture and religion in context. It is worthy of some class time.

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.

[Jason]

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.

[Exi5tentialist]

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?

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.

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.