Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[HomerJay]

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

Can you sue them for the pain?

[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.

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

Yes, I can just see personal freedoms instilled in children by faith schools. It appears to me that it is you who has difficulties grasping what the problem is.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Whoa - wait a second. You didn't SAY "love" their literature. You said "teach it as truth." One need not do the latter to do the former. I LOVE literature, and I read daily, and I read everything I can. I've read almost every well-known classic piece of literature anyone can name. I love it, very much. But, that doesn't mean I think it's "true." Why do you muddle these things?

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.

Since you've seen fit to make this a personal attack, I'll respond in kind: Your view sounds muddled and silly. You do not recognize the difference between loving something and thinking that it is true. Your view is very confused, and you turn learning into joyless indoctrination.

Incidentally I dropped out of biology at 13.

Why am I not surprised?

I love politics and controversy. Had the evolution/creationism debate been in the curriculum I might well have found a reason to love biology.

Before you learn about evolution, you need to learn about basic biology. It's like trying to learn algebra without knowing how to add, subtract, multiply and divide.

I think there are risks in drawing too neat lines around subject areas.

Sure, but it's not "too neat" to separate "The Book of Genesis" from evolutionary biology and physics. To mix those things would be to muddle learning, and to even suggest that they ought to be considered parts of the same discussion evinces a level of ignorance of science and learning that I've rarely encountered.

Compartmentalisation I suppose - I think it is based on the capitalist fundamental of the division of labour.

Now you sound ridiculous. I'm not talking about compartmentalism. I'm talking about not including the Bible and the Koran in courses on evolutionary biology.

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.

Some people are polymaths, like Isaac Asimov. Some aren't. I don't know what to tell you. But, adding bronze age religious tomes to modern science courses in which we are trying to teach children about scientific theory will not make them polymaths. It will make them stupid, because they won't learn the science.

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. The point is, ultimately, that Hemingway was a real person, Hamlet wasn't. Hemingway wrote The Sun Also Rises, but it isn't a true story. It's great, and I love the book, but it isn't true. Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, which is an incredible piece of English literature. But, it isn't true. There was no Castle Elsinore, and there wasn't a ghost of Hamlet's father, and nobody named Hamlet knew a guy named Yorik. That doesn't take away from the beauty of the writing, like Hamlet's famous soliloquy - to be or not to be, that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them. To day, to sleep, no more. To die, to sleep - perchance to dream. Aye, there's the rub. For in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off that mortal coil must give us pause. For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, the oppressors wrong, the proud man's conumely, the pangs of disprised love the law's delay, the insolence of office, and the spurns the patient merit of the unworthy make while he himself may his quietus make with a bare bodkin. Who would fardels bear and grunt and sweat under a weary life, but that the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country from whose born no traveler returns, puzzles the will and makes us rather bear those ills than fly to others we know not off...and thus, the patient hue of resolution is sicklied over with the pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pith and moment, in this regard their currents turn awry and lose the name of action..."

LOL - I think I still remember most of it.... There is no need to teach it "as truth." It is taught "as literature" and the students ought to find whatever "Truths" they find in literature. I find great "Truths" in Hamlet's soliloquy. To live or die, right? Why should we put up with the slings, arrows, whips, scorns and fardels, wrongs, contumely and all the rest of that shit. To Hamlet, it was that we don't know if something worse is going to be there after death -- what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil? Will it be a nightmare? What benefit, my friend, do we get by thinking that is "true?"

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'.

I don't mind having contradictory theories taught in science class, but just as I wouldn't teach Aesop's Fables in science class, I wouldn't want the Koran taught there either. It doesn't offer any competing theory, and isn't contradictory. It's just a bronze age book of poetry and prose, like the Old Testament. It doesn't offer an explanation for the same things that evolution explains.

Please don't misrepresent me as suggesting schools devote equal time to creationism,

O.k., you can just go ahead and misrepresent me, though, as you did above.

but a passing mention in the curriculum with no exam consequences is fine by me.

LOL - o.k. - if we can settle on a mere "passing mention" and NOTHING MORE, I can agree with you. Passing mention: "Some people reject the theory of evolution in favor of religious views that some people feel are incompatible with evolution. These include some Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos, Druze, Zoroastrians, Spiritists, Moonies, Mormons, Rastafarians, Pastafarians, and many other religions, together with all of their different denominations. Others, however, of those same religions, feel that their religion does not contradict the theory of evolution, and they harmonize somehow their religious beliefs with the theory of evolution. Religious beliefs are too numerous and varied to address in this course, so if you are interested, you can feel free to go to the County library or use the resources on the internet, or ask your parents, to help you research any of the hundreds of religions, denominations, sects, groups, cults and the like, which you may find interesting or enlightening. Now, back to science..."

How is that for a "passing mention?" Happy?

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.

In grammar school and high school? Typically no. There is a textbook, and certain basic things that kids should learn, and it is hard enough to get through that. It's not about comparative truths. It's about: what's the best, age-appropriate set of facts in various important subjects that we can teach the children to educate them? So, we learn in the US a course on American history, for example, and we learn SOME American history on a very basic level. It's not college level course with thesis, antithesis, and synthesis theories in play and in-depth historical research. It's a flipping grammar school or high school survey of hundreds of years of history in a short period of time to kids who can barely read.

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.

I reject your assertion that the new atheism is "insecure" about this. I find that what we need more of is learning, and what we need less of is tripe, which is what you're offering.

[Bella Fortuna]

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

Can you sue them for the pain?

Hey, some people pay good money for that!

[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

Yes, I can just see personal freedoms instilled in children by faith schools. It appears to me that it is you who has difficulties grasping what the problem is.

No, that isn't what I'm getting at. Personal freedoms are not 'instilled' at all, they are infringed upon and violated one way or the other.

Also, if you would respond to my posts as a whole rather than snipping out bits you'd like to take absurd 'shots' at I'd appreciate it. I do try to make a point with the entirety of my posts.

[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.

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?

No, I would like public schools to educate.

If parents want their children inculcated with religion, they can send them to a religious school.

I don't want government to be in the business of teaching any religion "as truth." If there is an age-appropriate "comparative religion" course, then I would be fine with that. However, at the age of 14-16, kids don't even have a good handle, yet, on history, literature and science. Comparative religion needs to be based on some understanding of history, for example, so that there is some context to place the origins of, say, the Jewish and Christian religions. World history is a prerequisite to comparative religions, I would say.

So, the earliest I would do a comparative religion course is in the senior year of high school, and it would be taught without reference to any religion being "true." The basic principles of the religions would be outlined, the origins of various religions would be studied, comparisons would be made between various religions like polytheist religions and the evolution of monotheism -- the Aton of ancient Egyptian religion as a precursor to Judaism - Roman sun worship of Sol Invictus in the later roman empire as a precursor to Christianity....worship of Mithra and the origin of many of our modern day Christian customs and holidays -- comparison of the deity Eastre and the origins of the fertility holiday in paganism and the rites of Easter in Christianity. The list goes on and on.

The concern of education is not to control what students believe is "True." It's to educate them.

[Hermit]

Personal freedoms are not 'instilled' at all, they are infringed upon and violated one way or the other.

Indeed. That is what Dawkins is protesting against; the indoctrination of children to the extent that they will accept the authority of the Koran over available evidence about the age of not only our planet but also the entire universe.

Also, if you would respond to my posts as a whole rather than snipping out bits you'd like to take absurd 'shots' at I'd appreciate it. I do try to make a point with the entirety of my posts.

I have a habit of quoting the bits I am actually addressing. If I find fault with one particular part of what someone posts I don't feel the need to also address the bits that hang off it.

[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.

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.

First of all teachers have to teach whatever is on the curriculum so
that is not something they have any real say in. But they still have to
enforce it however in the same way that police officers have to enforce
the law even though they too have no real say in it. And what on Earth are
you on about regarding imposing a world view ? I have no intention of doing
anything of the sort to anyone who is yet to become an adult. As how can basic
factual information constitute a world view ? You suggesting that even that has to
be balanced out ? I want pupils to learn how to think and not what to think. I wonder
however if this constitutes indoctrination in your mind also ? By your logic then either
nothing should be taught at all or everything must be balanced out regardless. That is far
more indoctrinary than anything I have suggested and therefore invalidates your accusation

[surreptitious57]

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?

No, I would like public schools to educate.

If parents want their children inculcated with religion, they can send them to a religious school.

I don't want government to be in the business of teaching any religion "as truth." If there is an age-appropriate "comparative religion" course, then I would be fine with that. However, at the age of 14-16, kids don't even have a good handle, yet, on history, literature and science. Comparative religion needs to be based on some understanding of history, for example, so that there is some context to place the origins of, say, the Jewish and Christian religions. World history is a prerequisite to comparative religions, I would say.

So, the earliest I would do a comparative religion course is in the senior year of high school, and it would be taught without reference to any religion being "true." The basic principles of the religions would be outlined, the origins of various religions would be studied, comparisons would be made between various religions like polytheist religions and the evolution of monotheism -- the Aton of ancient Egyptian religion as a precursor to Judaism - Roman sun worship of Sol Invictus in the later roman empire as a precursor to Christianity....worship of Mithra and the origin of many of our modern day Christian customs and holidays -- comparison of the deity Eastre and the origins of the fertility holiday in paganism and the rites of Easter in Christianity. The list goes on and on.

The concern of education is not to control what students believe is True. It's to educate them

Agree with you one hundred per cent about the teaching of
religion. But you contradict yourself when you suggest parents
send their children to a faith school if they wish to but then claim
that education is not to teach what they believe to be true. So surely
all children should be educated without exception where there is just no
attempt at any indoctrination ? Since otherwise they are not being educated
Just because a teacher teaches in a faith school does not give them the right
to indoctrinate any more than if they taught in a secular one as this is just wrong

[Coito ergo sum]

A private school is a private school. If it's a Catholic school and they teach that Jesus is Lord, well, then that's what they teach. Nobody has to go there, though, unless they choose to send their children there.

We can't stop churches or religious schools from saying or teaching what they want. That would be a violation of the fundamental right of freedom of expression.

When the State does it, however, they can't prefer one religion over other religions, or religion over non-religion. IMHO/

[Bella Fortuna]

A private school is a private school. If it's a Catholic school and they teach that Jesus is Lord, well, then that's what they teach. Nobody has to go there, though, unless they choose to send their children there.

We can't stop churches or religious schools from saying or teaching what they want. That would be a violation of the fundamental right of freedom of expression.

When the State does it, however, they can't prefer one religion over other religions, or religion over non-religion. IMHO/

Yes, and that's why the RE that is standard in UK schools seems so strange to most Americans... well, one reason among many that it seems mad.

[surreptitious57]

A private school is a private school. If it's a Catholic school and they teach that Jesus is Lord, well, then that's what they teach. Nobody has to go there, though, unless they choose to send their children there.

We can't stop churches or religious schools from saying or teaching what they want. That would be a violation of the fundamental right of freedom of expression.

When the State does it, however, they can't prefer one religion over other religions, or religion over non-religion. IMHO

The United States Constitution advocates separation of
Church and State. All State institutions must therefore be
free from the influence of religion. But religious schools are
exempt from this. Now this may very well be legal but it is not
right. The law should and must apply equally or else just not at all
As regards the freedom of expression I invoke the spirit of Voltaire
but children do not have the independence of mind that adults do and
so for eighteen years they are under the legal, educational and financial
jurisdiction of them and are not in a position to express themselves freely
like you or I are. Therefore no one should have the right to tell them what to
think. Just look at the number of Creationists you have and why ? Because they
were indoctrinated by parents and teachers and no one did anything about it and
that is just plain wrong. They can not think for themselves as they were denied the
opportunity to develop their minds because others wanted to do that for them instead

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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

And we get to kill anyone who doesn't believe in Dark Matter!

[Coito ergo sum]

A private school is a private school. If it's a Catholic school and they teach that Jesus is Lord, well, then that's what they teach. Nobody has to go there, though, unless they choose to send their children there.

We can't stop churches or religious schools from saying or teaching what they want. That would be a violation of the fundamental right of freedom of expression.

When the State does it, however, they can't prefer one religion over other religions, or religion over non-religion. IMHO

The United States Constitution advocates separation of
Church and State. All State institutions must therefore be
free from the influence of religion. But religious schools are
exempt from this. Now this may very well be legal but it is not
right.

Religious schools, if they are funded privately, are not "State institutions."

The law should and must apply equally or else just not at all

You said it yourself. State institutions. I've noticed this more and more over the years...this strange conflation of private institutions into the rubric of "State institutions." I'm not sure why private employers and private organizations are being perceived more and more as part of the State, but in my experience more and more folks hold that view.

As regards the freedom of expression I invoke the spirit of Voltaire
but children do not have the independence of mind that adults do and
so for eighteen years they are under the legal, educational and financial
jurisdiction of them and are not in a position to express themselves freely
like you or I are.

I know of know legal basis for suggesting that parents are not free to express themselves to their children freely like you or I are.

Therefore no one should have the right to tell them what to
think.

Even schools?

Just look at the number of Creationists you have and why ? Because they
were indoctrinated by parents and teachers and no one did anything about it and
that is just plain wrong. They can not think for themselves as they were denied the
opportunity to develop their minds because others wanted to do that for them instead

Besides allowing parents to raise their children, what would be your alternative. I realize that some parents are going to teach their kids bullshit. I can't help it if someone teaches their kid to be a vegan, utilize homeopathy, wear balance bracelets, and believe that wheat grass juice is a "superfood." But, I see no way around that being the case, short of adopting speech codes enforced by law as to what can and can't be said to children. I, frankly, don't trust any government to set such a code, as they are as likely as not to be as incompetent as any particular parent.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

And we get to kill anyone who doesn't believe in Dark Matter!

I think mulatto matter follows logically from the existence of dark matter and matter.