Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Bella Fortuna]

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. 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.

^^^ This is what I was getting at earlier; thank you for putting it so well.

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!

[charlou]

Just listened to the Dawkins link you posted. Ditto on those thoughts, RD.

[charlou]

I've been posting as I've been reading through ... I note (and am not surprised to find), as I continue reading, that I've been reiterating points already made by other posters. I would have been surprised had that not been the case.

[charlou]

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.

Why think love of literature and accepting that it is fiction/myth are mutually exclusive?

[Hermit]

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.

Isn't this thread about faith schools where creationism is taught as The Truth™, where the Koran is explicitly taught to trump over scientific evidence, and the question of whether this approach to teaching is fittingly described as 'alien rubbish'?

in favour of a one truth-based education system.

Which is what faith based schools are about, and atheists are fighting against. Thanks, Bella, for the Dawkins snippet.

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.

Atheists are not insecure. They are fighting the practice of faith schools off teaching The Truth™, which is the sort of thing you appear to be opposed to as well. I join Dawkins in wishing the atheist lobby was as powerful and effective as that of the Jewish lobby in the United States.

[Magicziggy]

Just listened to the Dawkins link you posted. Ditto on those thoughts, RD.

Thanks for posting. I'd seen that broadcast live and that particular morsel got a little dronwed out in Steven Fielding making a complete dick of himself.
I must watch the whole thing again.

[charlou]

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.

Yes, I think the delivery makes a difference to how a child processes the fact they've been lied to, and how it affects them into adulthood, and how it affects their parenting if/when they become a parent. I have wondered what it would be like to be raised with religion (and myths like Santa for fun rather than manipulation, for that matter) in a happy loving home. I'm sure I'd be different in response to religion, etc.

[JimC]

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?

Not this little black duck...

[JimC]

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.

[surreptitious57]

I am with Richard Dawkins on this. Children should not
be indoctrinated. They should be educated. The two are
mutually exclusive. The problem with faith schools is that
this distinction becomes eroded. Academies also can teach
in the same way. There should be a national curriculum with
inspectors with legal powers to walk in to any school anywhere
to maintain that educational standards are being maintained and
where religion is taught, it is done as a humanity, not as a science
It is laughable - or would be if it was not so serious - that some parents
want their children to accept uncritically what they are told when such info
is factually incorrect and proven to be so. No school, religious or non-religious
should be doing this. But the problem unfortunately extends beyond the school and
into the home where the state has no power to intervene. And that is rather sad. What
is even more so is that many of these parents are educated individuals who ought to know
better. I am all in favour of anyone believing whatever they want to - without exception - but
indoctrinating innocent minds who do not have the intellectual capacity to question what they are
being told is fundamentally wrong. Children should only be thought factual information initially and as
time progresses and their minds develop then they can be introduced to the concept of critical thinking and
questioning what they are told. But even then no one should be forcing dogma down their throats. Their minds are
still maturing. When they become adults then one can indoctrinate them as much as they want since hopefully by then
will have enough knowledge and understanding to recognise it for what it is. But a young child should not be exposed to this

[Exi5tentialist]

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.

I just don't think every act of teaching must be prefaced with a statement that it is truth or a myth. In that sense I completely disagree with Dawkins. The truth is not Dawkins-dependent.

And as I said, I don't think there's anything wrong with inviting a number of different speakers in to a class, each of whom believe something different, whether it's religion or anything else. I'm as in favour of children seeking their own evidence as you are. And adults.

[Exi5tentialist]

I am with Richard Dawkins on this. Children should not
be indoctrinated. They should be educated. The two are
mutually exclusive. The problem with faith schools is that
this distinction becomes eroded. Academies also can teach
in the same way. There should be a national curriculum with
inspectors with legal powers to walk in to any school anywhere
to maintain that educational standards are being maintained and
where religion is taught, it is done as a humanity, not as a science
It is laughable - or would be if it was not so serious - that some parents
want their children to accept uncritically what they are told when such info
is factually incorrect and proven to be so. No school, religious or non-religious
should be doing this. But the problem unfortunately extends beyond the school and
into the home where the state has no power to intervene. And that is rather sad. What
is even more so is that many of these parents are educated individuals who ought to know
better. I am all in favour of anyone believing whatever they want to - without exception - but
indoctrinating innocent minds who do not have the intellectual capacity to question what they are
being told is fundamentally wrong. Children should only be thought factual information initially and as
time progresses and their minds develop then they can be introduced to the concept of critical thinking and
questioning what they are told. But even then no one should be forcing dogma down their throats. Their minds are
still maturing. When they become adults then one can indoctrinate them as much as they want since hopefully by then
will have enough knowledge and understanding to recognise it for what it is. But a young child should not be exposed to this

Yeah but really all education is indoctrination. I think we should face up to that. To pretend otherwise is to assume moral high ground for your particular version of indoctrination. Back to the one and only truth again, I feel.

[Magicziggy]

No. No preachers in schools.

[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.

[Hermit]

The truth is not Dawkins-dependent.

True, that. Neither the Bible's story of the first woman ever being fashioned of one of the first man's rib nor the Koran's version of creation is The Truth™, no matter what Dawkins thinks of it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with inviting a number of different speakers in to a class, each of whom believe something different, whether it's religion or anything else. I'm as in favour of children seeking their own evidence as you are. And adults.

That is not what Dawkins was objecting to.