Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[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

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

If you seriously think that the teaching of factual information is indoctrination then
we might as well not bother teaching anything at all now. The only legitimate argument
that would suffice here is if the factual information being taught was being done deliberately
to the exclusion of other information for political purposes. I do not think that at the very basic level
that such concerns apply. And teachers do not have the same freedom to impose their opinions on children
as parents do and there are no checks and balances on that even when it is quite obviously blatant indoctrination

[surreptitious57]

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

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

[Rum]

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

Inspectors do have the right to go into all schools, academies or not. The main difference between 'maintained' (state) schools, academies and so called 'free schools' is that they report directly to a central government unit and have a much looser and weaker relationship with their local authority.

There are also looser controls on the curriculum, though they are not totally free in this area either. Personally, as someone who worked for many years in education planning and administration, I am all for ditching the national curriculum. I have always thought it a bad idea. When I qualified as a teacher it had just come in and it was like a straight jacket, discouraging creativity and imagination equally with its rigidity. It should take quite a lot of responsibility for standards remaining stubbornly low despite the billions Tony Blaire's government threw at education (that and a hugely conservative (small C) and reactionary teaching body and their unions).

[JimC]

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?

[surreptitious57]

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

Jim well done
pour yourself a gin
but just a small one now
small as in small that is not
well whatever any way well done

[Jason]

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?

The problem is it isn't their choice - the 'indoctrinated innocent' or the 'educated acceptables', at least to a point. You can stop going to church or you can quit school at a particular age, but you're almost bound to attend one or the other or both for many years beforehand.

If preachers are not to be allowed to preach to the innocent, then teachers ought to abide by the same set of rules. What right have you, or anyone else, to impose your worldview, 'fact' based or not, upon another human being? This 'stop the indoctrination!' chant of the fervent atheists is ironic in its hypocrisy. You impose a worldview on what is effectively a tabula rasa either way and so both are forms of indoctrination. The problem, to repeat myself, is choice.

Now put that gin back on the shelf.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Certainly. But, education has to be age-appropriate. 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.

[Jason]

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.

Certainly. But, education has to be age-appropriate. 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.

Back to my point and problem, you'd like to have the child for 18 years then give 'the man' (St. Francis Xavier ) over to the carefully supervised and controlled study of religion?

[Robert_S]

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?

The problem is it isn't their choice - the 'indoctrinated innocent' or the 'educated acceptables', at least to a point. You can stop going to church or you can quit school at a particular age, but you're almost bound to attend one or the other or both for many years beforehand.

If preachers are not to be allowed to preach to the innocent, then teachers ought to abide by the same set of rules. What right have you, or anyone else, to impose your worldview, 'fact' based or not, upon another human being? This 'stop the indoctrination!' chant of the fervent atheists is ironic in its hypocrisy. You impose a worldview on what is effectively a tabula rasa either way and so both are forms of indoctrination. The problem, to repeat myself, is choice.

Now put that gin back on the shelf.

That right. We don't need no "One True Thuth"

If I come to the counter with an item costing $7.67 and I hand the cashier a $5.00 bill I have every right to expect to get my purchase and $131.54 change. But the Math Nazis don't agree. They say I still owe money. Fucking intolerant arrogant bastards.

[Jason]

You're missing the forest for the trees young padawan.

But you know that. More propaganda - it's to be expected.

[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. 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.

I'm afraid I would consider this complete and utter bollocks, with nothing here worth saying Charlou, except that it continues gives nutters access to children (which is the religionists endgame).

Firstly, you don't say what 'Objectively delivered' means in this context so it sounds like you're arguing for a blank cheque to the nutters.

In some Islamic faith schools in the UK kids split their day 50-50 between education and Islamic shit. That's 3 hours a day of shit. This can be delivered 'objectively', 3 hours of what 'good muslims aspire to' followed at the end of the day with a prayer that says simply 'allow us to be good muslims'. Indoctrination complete.

Everywhere that religion has or continues to touch our lives, cultural, legal, in literature whatever should be delivered in context not in a separate religious education programme - the whole point if what you're saying is correct is that it needs to be in that context, not lifted out and taught as a subject in it's own right, that is how you teach the 'cultural reality'.

The nutters don't allow critical assessments to be made about their religions, so RE is always delivered as a hagiographic whitewash - out of 'respect' for those religions, so if the religionists won't allow critical commentary then they shouldn't be allowed positive commentary.

This is a false dichotomy - that you can deliver some sort of information transfer without giving nutters opportunites to sow their seeds (yuk!), obvious forms of indoctrination maybe banned but in the Islamic example I gave above, conformity is dealt through much more complex mechanisms and this dichotomy is just too simplistic to touch on it.

We have a constant campaign from Christians to see creationism taught, not because they are creationist, in the UK only 10% of Christians identify as creationists but because it gives the mainstream chance to put their view over. They don't want people to be creationists they wan tthem to be good Anglicans.

The continued calls for Religious Education we see, like this, I dismiss as a cultural overlay that religion should be respected, not as a considered view about what the content of the curriculum should be.

Note from what you've stated we have no idea of what the content or duration of your Religious Education programme would be (ie the most important points) but we do know that you think that children should continue to be exposed to this shit. In this sense it simply mimicks and enables the nutters without criticism.

[Jason]

My, how you can take so few words, extrapolate them according to your bias, and then assault them. There's a fallacy named for that I believe.

Incidentally, I received a good part of my education from a Catholic institution.

[Hermit]

If preachers are not to be allowed to preach to the innocent, then teachers ought to abide by the same set of rules.

We are talking about faith schools here, right?

Reason is the enemy of faith - Martin Luther

If you promise not to preach in schools and I promise not to think in churches.

What exactly is wrong with keeping faith and knowledge apart? That is to say, to keep matters of faith in churches and evidence-based knowledge in churches? Are you seriously advocating that it is OK to teach young-earth-creationism as The Truth™? That's what happens in faith schools. May as well approve of teaching the stork theory of procreation on the same grounds.

[Bella Fortuna]

If we allow them in schools, then they can allow equal time for science teachers in church.

[Jason]

If preachers are not to be allowed to preach to the innocent, then teachers ought to abide by the same set of rules.

We are talking about faith schools here, right?

Reason is the enemy of faith - Martin Luther

If you promise not to preach in schools and I promise not to think in churches.

What exactly is wrong with keeping faith and knowledge apart? That is to say, to keep matters of faith in churches and evidence-based knowledge in churches? Are you seriously advocating that it is OK to teach young-earth-creationism as The Truth™? That's what happens in faith schools. May as well approve of teaching the stork theory of procreation on the same grounds.

Don't be absurd. Is the problem really that hard to grasp?

I said in a much earlier post that the problem is about personal freedoms for all involved, now I've clarified it some more and still people (at least pretend) not to understand. Perhaps you ought to do some reading on epistemology and the meaning of my use of the term 'tabula rasa' will become clearer.