Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[HomerJay]

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'm not sure what you mean about the 'nature' of religious beliefs, children aren't taught about the nature of other beliefs, concepts of knowledge etc.

I couldn't possibly agree that they need this "as much as they need to know the nature and implications of the law, or government" as that seems to be putting them on a par with each other, which isn't correct.

As it stands ATM, in the UK, the Abrahamic religions dominate the curriculum to a very large degree (95% or more), so if kids have managed without exposure to each and every possible religion, why do they need to know so much about the Abrahamic shit?

We currently teach kids more hours of Judaism than hours they need to learn in order to fly a light aircraft as adults (this excludes the shit they've been force fed in primary school). The exact context and exposure of hours vs value seems a hugely complicated calculation and I don't think we're near an answer yet.

Even if you look at a religiously motivated history, say of the Crusades (which won't cover more than a couple of hours) how much value does spending some of that 2 hours discussing the tenets of the belligerents add? Next none, I would say.

[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?

[Coito ergo sum]

LOTR wasn't a documentary?

....well....Spinal Tap actually did put out an album....

....maybe he is on to something...

[Magicziggy]

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?

To function in the world, they should understand the people that inhabit it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

LOTR wasn't a documentary?

....well....Spinal Tap actually did put out an album....

....maybe he is on to something...

Yeah, but their first album took it to eleven.

[Exi5tentialist]

Literature and stories should not be taught as truth, because they aren't true. They should be taught as literature, stories, plays, etc.

I think this sums up the difference between us. A literature teacher who loves literature is the best kind of teacher. But a literature teacher who doesn't believe their literature - the emotions, the style, the atmosphere - well, I'd have my doubts about their competence.

I think you take the prize for proselytizing the cold, literal truth or what you think it is. But I say your view is cold. It turns learning into a joyless experience with hard and fast boundaries between subjects. I certainly take your point about the US teaching of religion in high school, my experience is UK, but it seems to me that a school could reasonably invite different speakers from different religions in who separately teach what they believe is true and still satisfy the requirement not to proselytise on behalf of the state.

Incidentally I dropped out of biology at 13. I love politics and controversy. Had the evolution/creationism debate been in the curriculum I might well have found a reason to love biology. I think there are risks in drawing too neat lines around subject areas. Compartmentalisation I suppose - I think it is based on the capitalist fundamental of the division of labour. Person A becomes a biologist, Person B becomes a philosopher. Person A is a brilliant biologist but a crap philosopher (oh, let me think who...), Person B is a brilliant philosopher but a crap biologist. That is the typical outcome of our compartmentalised education system, I find it rather a shame.

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

My fundamental argument is that if children are taught numerous contradictory things without constant guidance or commentary from teachers about what is true and what isn't, they will be in a far better position to develop competence in making reasoned judgements, rather than just learning stuff like evolution as 'givens'. Please don't misrepresent me as suggesting schools devote equal time to creationism, but a passing mention in the curriculum with no exam consequences is fine by me. I'm not proposing any big changes really because I think this is the way much teaching in done in the west anyway: contradictory truths. I'm suggesting we should make it explicit and expand it, not restrict it in favour of a one truth-based education system. It is interesting that New Atheism is so insecure about this, in many ways I am glad that they do not have as much influence as they would like, I think it would be rather a scary education system if they did.

[Magicziggy]

I'm against having religious reps come in and talk to kids.
RE should be delivered from a neutral stand point.
And preferably framed as the fiction that it is.

[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?

To function in the world, they should understand the people that inhabit it.

If you see my reply to XC about judaism, which receives particular attention at ages 11-16, statistically, in the UK, children are twice as likely to meet Polish people than jews, yet nothing is taught about Poland and it's people. And what would we teach them? Polish Catholicism? Polish history, Polish politics? Polish Art? The language? Polish football?

Do kids cease to function in the world without a knowledge of Polish cookery?

[Magicziggy]

Not sure many people are killing each other in the name of Poland either.

[charlou]

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"?

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

I disagree with the "teach as truth" bit. Strongly disagree with teaching anything as "truth". If children are to think for themselves then ideas should be introduced without bias, and the children encouraged to seek evidence to develop informed opinions and weed out nonsense. That is treating children as intelligent individuals.

Religion as a general topic has a place in philosophy, anthropology and history classes ... it isn't science.

[charlou]

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.

I don't think Dawkins has ever said religion should not be a subject for students. I think he may even have advocated it (anyone know if that's the case?) ... His objection to faith schools seems to be similar to your objection to teaching a single religious creed, but my understanding is that he, like me, thinks it inappropriate to teach it as truth.

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.

You were not taught that Thor was a truth? I wasn't. I learned about mythology. We don't need to be introduced to ideas as truth in order to sort out what we think about them.

[charlou]

Edited my post above ... "We don't need ... "

[Bella Fortuna]

I don't think Dawkins has ever said religion should not be a subject for students. I think he may even have advocated it (anyone know if that's the case?)

Voila!

http://plastiquemonkey.videosift.com/vi ... -in-School

[charlou]

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. Religion exists. It's not a case of let's ignore it and hope it will go away. It underlies many of our current cultural behaviours and laws. It exists in literature, film, music, art in general. It creates problems in secular politics, scientific research. As myth, it has some allegorical merit. Objectively delivered comparative religious education is not teaching faith or belief, or imposing dogma. It's delivering information about a cultural reality.

I can understand fierce aversion to religion ... but I don't think we should allow fear or anger to confuse us about the difference between dogmatic indoctrination and objective delivery of information and dictate how we deal with it.

[charlou]

I don't think Dawkins has ever said religion should not be a subject for students. I think he may even have advocated it (anyone know if that's the case?)

Voila!

http://plastiquemonkey.videosift.com/vi ... -in-School

That was quick!