Religion in School

DLM

Reverend said:

Toast is god. 

http://underthetapestry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/JesusOnToast2.jpg

Bears a striking resemblance to Ola Englund, too....

english_bob

fields5069 said:

I certainly think religion should be studied, as part of humanities. That people have a religion is fact, the religious beliefs people hold are not. I wouldn't like to see teaching devoted totally to reason and logic and fact, but to favour one subject in the great canon of unproven beliefs seems to show an unhealthy bias.

By that logic, we shouldn't allow Gary Lineker to present Match of the Day.

professorben

english_bob said:

tampadragon said:

If they have to teach it, then it should be taught in an un-biased way by a teacher who has no beliefs and presented as facts about the religion in full. 

So should the teacher be an atheist, or an agnostic? Or someone who doesn't actually give a shit about the topic they're teaching? Why can't a religious believer be unbiased? Wouldn't a confirmed atheist be just as biased?

Facts about the religion in full? How many hours a week do you think we should devote to this? I'm sure they could at least do a bit of myth-busting, like a slightly fuller social/religious/historical context for the Crusades, or about the diversity of attitudes to women within the major world religions.

FWIW, I think children should be taught about religion in something like this way. Given that something like 84% of the world have some sort of religious belief, ignorance of all of them seems like a bad idea. 

I agree a full coverage of all faiths is really important, but it's when the lines between fact and faith are blurred is the issue, I have no issue with people being religious, but have a real problem when people foist their beliefs on others, especially to young impressionable minds and even more do when coming from scene in a trusted educational position.
i think the OP was expressing concern that his child is being told that God created the world in seven days, or that the sky is blue because God wants to be etc.
its an easy get out for a lazy teacher, or for a Teacher with an agenda to influence young minds.
My father was a teacher, he was a chemistry teacher, but moved to primary, there he taught history, geology, English, lots of subjects he didn't really give a toss about, but he did it and did it well, because he was professional.

RocknRollDave

I have no idea what the current guidelines are, but back in the early 90's there was a rule that said schools should have assemblies "of a broadly Christian nature".

My 4 year old daughter has started asking questions about death and what it means if somebody dies, and what happens to them etc. Her mommy has explained that some people believe people go to Heaven when they die, some people believe that when people die it is just the end, and that is very sad but we can keep nice memories of them.

I shall be happy for her to make her own informed decision when she is old enough. Key words there "her OWN decision" and "informed".

I shall be happy to share my views on Christianity and the harm it did me, should she ever ask.

TimmyO

Re the OP's question, I'd speak to the head teacher - if it is just your child's class teacher on a solo mission it's the quickest way of highlighting it (and if that is happening any good head will be on it quick sharp) - and if it is the head's mandate, same applies. 

fields5069

english_bob said:

fields5069 said:

I certainly think religion should be studied, as part of humanities. That people have a religion is fact, the religious beliefs people hold are not. I wouldn't like to see teaching devoted totally to reason and logic and fact, but to favour one subject in the great canon of unproven beliefs seems to show an unhealthy bias.

By that logic, we shouldn't allow Gary Lineker to present Match of the Day.

You've lost me, not a difficult task I'll admit. I firmly believe he did play football.

english_bob

professorben said:

english_bob said:

tampadragon said:

If they have to teach it, then it should be taught in an un-biased way by a teacher who has no beliefs and presented as facts about the religion in full. 

So should the teacher be an atheist, or an agnostic? Or someone who doesn't actually give a shit about the topic they're teaching? Why can't a religious believer be unbiased? Wouldn't a confirmed atheist be just as biased?

Facts about the religion in full? How many hours a week do you think we should devote to this? I'm sure they could at least do a bit of myth-busting, like a slightly fuller social/religious/historical context for the Crusades, or about the diversity of attitudes to women within the major world religions.

FWIW, I think children should be taught about religion in something like this way. Given that something like 84% of the world have some sort of religious belief, ignorance of all of them seems like a bad idea. 

I agree a full coverage of all faiths is really important, but it's when the lines between fact and faith are blurred is the issue, I have no issue with people being religious, but have a real problem when people foist their beliefs on others, especially to young impressionable minds and even more do when coming from scene in a trusted educational position.
i think the OP was expressing concern that his child is being told that God created the world in seven days, or that the sky is blue because God wants to be etc.
its an easy get out for a lazy teacher, or for a Teacher with an agenda to influence young minds.

Isn't it "foisting your beliefs on others" to tell your kids that God doesn't exist? If there's one educational position a child will trust more than a teacher, it's a parent. People pass on all sorts of beliefs to their kids all the time.

And FWIW, the OP didn't say that his child had been taught anything other than that "God made everything"- nothing about seven-day creation or the sky being blue because God wants it to be. That's your interpretation of what the statement means, and it's only one of a whole range of views.

lloyd

english_bob said:

professorben said:

english_bob said:

tampadragon said:

If they have to teach it, then it should be taught in an un-biased way by a teacher who has no beliefs and presented as facts about the religion in full. 

So should the teacher be an atheist, or an agnostic? Or someone who doesn't actually give a shit about the topic they're teaching? Why can't a religious believer be unbiased? Wouldn't a confirmed atheist be just as biased?

Facts about the religion in full? How many hours a week do you think we should devote to this? I'm sure they could at least do a bit of myth-busting, like a slightly fuller social/religious/historical context for the Crusades, or about the diversity of attitudes to women within the major world religions.

FWIW, I think children should be taught about religion in something like this way. Given that something like 84% of the world have some sort of religious belief, ignorance of all of them seems like a bad idea. 

I agree a full coverage of all faiths is really important, but it's when the lines between fact and faith are blurred is the issue, I have no issue with people being religious, but have a real problem when people foist their beliefs on others, especially to young impressionable minds and even more do when coming from scene in a trusted educational position.
i think the OP was expressing concern that his child is being told that God created the world in seven days, or that the sky is blue because God wants to be etc.
its an easy get out for a lazy teacher, or for a Teacher with an agenda to influence young minds.

Isn't it "foisting your beliefs on others" to tell your kids that God doesn't exist? If there's one educational position a child will trust more than a teacher, it's a parent. People pass on all sorts of beliefs to their kids all the time.

No, that is teaching your child to look at the world with a critical eye and to question everything and when told something to ask the teller to prove it with demonstrable evidence not based on feelings.

It's critical minds and that kind of scientific thinking that we need from people anyone who applies the same reasoning they apply to any other question to religion comes up with the same answer-it's almost definitely to the nth degree a load of old bollocks.

The only way it makes sense is to make it a special case and to entrust your "faith" that god exists.

english_bob

fields5069 said:

english_bob said:

fields5069 said:

I certainly think religion should be studied, as part of humanities. That people have a religion is fact, the religious beliefs people hold are not. I wouldn't like to see teaching devoted totally to reason and logic and fact, but to favour one subject in the great canon of unproven beliefs seems to show an unhealthy bias.

By that logic, we shouldn't allow Gary Lineker to present Match of the Day.

You've lost me, not a difficult task I'll admit. I firmly believe he did play football.

He "favours one subject in the great canon of unproven beliefs" in that he's a Leicester City supporter. Does he have an "unhealthy bias" when providing an overview of the week's football? Or is he able to set aside his bias?

EricTheWeary

He acknowledges his bias so we can interpret his comments in the light of that. Might be reasonable for a teacher to do likewise, although the difference between 'my personal belief ' and 'this is the right belief ' might be a difficult concept for a 5 year old to manage.

english_bob said:

fields5069 said:

english_bob said:

fields5069 said:

I certainly think religion should be studied, as part of humanities. That people have a religion is fact, the religious beliefs people hold are not. I wouldn't like to see teaching devoted totally to reason and logic and fact, but to favour one subject in the great canon of unproven beliefs seems to show an unhealthy bias.

By that logic, we shouldn't allow Gary Lineker to present Match of the Day.

You've lost me, not a difficult task I'll admit. I firmly believe he did play football.

He "favours one subject in the great canon of unproven beliefs" in that he's a Leicester City supporter. Does he have an "unhealthy bias" when providing an overview of the week's football? Or is he able to set aside his bias?

Nikko

DLM said:

Reverend said:

Toast is god. 

http://underthetapestry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/JesusOnToast2.jpg

Bears a striking resemblance to Ola Englund, too....

And Tony Iommi...

english_bob

lloyd said:

english_bob said:

professorben said:

english_bob said:

tampadragon said:

If they have to teach it, then it should be taught in an un-biased way by a teacher who has no beliefs and presented as facts about the religion in full. 

So should the teacher be an atheist, or an agnostic? Or someone who doesn't actually give a shit about the topic they're teaching? Why can't a religious believer be unbiased? Wouldn't a confirmed atheist be just as biased?

Facts about the religion in full? How many hours a week do you think we should devote to this? I'm sure they could at least do a bit of myth-busting, like a slightly fuller social/religious/historical context for the Crusades, or about the diversity of attitudes to women within the major world religions.

FWIW, I think children should be taught about religion in something like this way. Given that something like 84% of the world have some sort of religious belief, ignorance of all of them seems like a bad idea. 

I agree a full coverage of all faiths is really important, but it's when the lines between fact and faith are blurred is the issue, I have no issue with people being religious, but have a real problem when people foist their beliefs on others, especially to young impressionable minds and even more do when coming from scene in a trusted educational position.
i think the OP was expressing concern that his child is being told that God created the world in seven days, or that the sky is blue because God wants to be etc.
its an easy get out for a lazy teacher, or for a Teacher with an agenda to influence young minds.

Isn't it "foisting your beliefs on others" to tell your kids that God doesn't exist? If there's one educational position a child will trust more than a teacher, it's a parent. People pass on all sorts of beliefs to their kids all the time.

No, that is teaching your child to look at the world with a critical eye and to question everything and when told something to ask the teller to prove it with demonstrable evidence not based on feelings.

It's critical minds and that kind of scientific thinking that we need from people anyone who applies the same reasoning they apply to any other question to religion comes up with the same answer-it's almost definitely to the nth degree a load of old bollocks.

The only way it makes sense is to make it a special case and to entrust your "faith" that god exists.

It's equally impossible to prove or disprove scientifically the existence of god. You seem to be acknowledging that yourself when you suggest that one ought to apply reason to the question of religion (though you don't specify which question), which isn't the same thing at all. "God doesn't exist" is just as unfounded a claim as "God made everything". It just sits better with your view of the world, so you're less critical of it. We all do it.

fields5069

english_bob said:

professorben said:

english_bob said:

tampadragon said:

If they have to teach it, then it should be taught in an un-biased way by a teacher who has no beliefs and presented as facts about the religion in full. 

So should the teacher be an atheist, or an agnostic? Or someone who doesn't actually give a shit about the topic they're teaching? Why can't a religious believer be unbiased? Wouldn't a confirmed atheist be just as biased?

Facts about the religion in full? How many hours a week do you think we should devote to this? I'm sure they could at least do a bit of myth-busting, like a slightly fuller social/religious/historical context for the Crusades, or about the diversity of attitudes to women within the major world religions.

FWIW, I think children should be taught about religion in something like this way. Given that something like 84% of the world have some sort of religious belief, ignorance of all of them seems like a bad idea. 

I agree a full coverage of all faiths is really important, but it's when the lines between fact and faith are blurred is the issue, I have no issue with people being religious, but have a real problem when people foist their beliefs on others, especially to young impressionable minds and even more do when coming from scene in a trusted educational position.
i think the OP was expressing concern that his child is being told that God created the world in seven days, or that the sky is blue because God wants to be etc.
its an easy get out for a lazy teacher, or for a Teacher with an agenda to influence young minds.

Isn't it "foisting your beliefs on others" to tell your kids that God doesn't exist? If there's one educational position a child will trust more than a teacher, it's a parent. People pass on all sorts of beliefs to their kids all the time.

And FWIW, the OP didn't say that his child had been taught anything other than that "God made everything"- nothing about seven-day creation or the sky being blue because God wants it to be. That's your interpretation of what the statement means, and it's only one of a whole range of views.

I'm not asking the teacher to do that, I'm asking the teacher to point out that there is no proof. And before you counter, no I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. :-)

english_bob

english_bob said:

fields5069 said:

english_bob said:

fields5069 said:

I certainly think religion should be studied, as part of humanities. That people have a religion is fact, the religious beliefs people hold are not. I wouldn't like to see teaching devoted totally to reason and logic and fact, but to favour one subject in the great canon of unproven beliefs seems to show an unhealthy bias.

By that logic, we shouldn't allow Gary Lineker to present Match of the Day.

You've lost me, not a difficult task I'll admit. I firmly believe he did play football.

He "favours one subject in the great canon of unproven beliefs" in that he's a Leicester City supporter. Does he have an "unhealthy bias" when providing an overview of the week's football? Or is he able to set aside his bias?

EricTheWeary said:

He acknowledges his bias so we can interpret his comments in the light of that. Might be reasonable for a teacher to do likewise, although the difference between 'my personal belief ' and 'this is the right belief ' might be a difficult concept for a 5 year old to manage.

Exactly. It makes far more sense for a teacher to acknowledge a bias than to try to find teachers who don't have one. Because good luck with that. 

fields5069

But I don't think it's right or proper that a teacher should have such a serious and harmful bias, which let's face it I don't think you could say of Gary Lineker. So yes, just as the school shouldn't employ certain convicted criminals, so they also shouldn't employ a religious person who can't keep their bias to themselves.

fields5069

Meant to say "exhibit such a serious and harmful bias", because I agree not having such a bias is too restrictive.

RocknRollDave

english_bob said:

It's equally impossible to prove or disprove scientifically the existence of god. 

This is true, and actually undermines the belief in God even further.

Disprovability is an important part of Science. It allows us to double check our eveidence and our theories.

Just like we can't see God, we can't see wind, we can't see electricity, we can't see gas. Yet we can not only do tests that prove that wind, electricity and gas exist, we can also do tests that would catergorically DISprove their existence should it be the case that they didn't exist.

If you cannot come up with a test that would disprove the existence of something....there is a good chance it doesn't exist.

lloyd

english_bob said:

lloyd said:

english_bob said:

professorben said:

english_bob said:

tampadragon said:

If they have to teach it, then it should be taught in an un-biased way by a teacher who has no beliefs and presented as facts about the religion in full. 

So should the teacher be an atheist, or an agnostic? Or someone who doesn't actually give a shit about the topic they're teaching? Why can't a religious believer be unbiased? Wouldn't a confirmed atheist be just as biased?

Facts about the religion in full? How many hours a week do you think we should devote to this? I'm sure they could at least do a bit of myth-busting, like a slightly fuller social/religious/historical context for the Crusades, or about the diversity of attitudes to women within the major world religions.

FWIW, I think children should be taught about religion in something like this way. Given that something like 84% of the world have some sort of religious belief, ignorance of all of them seems like a bad idea. 

I agree a full coverage of all faiths is really important, but it's when the lines between fact and faith are blurred is the issue, I have no issue with people being religious, but have a real problem when people foist their beliefs on others, especially to young impressionable minds and even more do when coming from scene in a trusted educational position.
i think the OP was expressing concern that his child is being told that God created the world in seven days, or that the sky is blue because God wants to be etc.
its an easy get out for a lazy teacher, or for a Teacher with an agenda to influence young minds.

Isn't it "foisting your beliefs on others" to tell your kids that God doesn't exist? If there's one educational position a child will trust more than a teacher, it's a parent. People pass on all sorts of beliefs to their kids all the time.

No, that is teaching your child to look at the world with a critical eye and to question everything and when told something to ask the teller to prove it with demonstrable evidence not based on feelings.

It's critical minds and that kind of scientific thinking that we need from people anyone who applies the same reasoning they apply to any other question to religion comes up with the same answer-it's almost definitely to the nth degree a load of old bollocks.

The only way it makes sense is to make it a special case and to entrust your "faith" that god exists.

It's equally impossible to prove or disprove scientifically the existence of god. You seem to be acknowledging that yourself when you suggest that one ought to apply reason to the question of religion (though you don't specify which question), which isn't the same thing at all. "God doesn't exist" is just as unfounded a claim as "God made everything". It just sits better with your view of the world, so you're less critical of it. We all do it.

How am I contradicting my own view?

I've said that we can't be sure 100% there is no god, we can't be 100% sure that we're not in a simulation Matrix style.

I'm more than happy to say that I can't prove his non-existence in the same way that I can't disprove the existence of Russell's teapot.

The statement that "god doesn't exist" can be uttered with a fairly high degree of scientific (the important shit) confidence in it's accuracy as to not qualify as a "belief" whereas "god does exist" takes such a fucking leap of faith as to have to consider it a belief-can you see the difference?

To say that one sits better because of my worldview is accurate I suppose, but somewhat misses the point by a long way. If we're assuming that we're rational, educated and scientific minded people, the world view of "believing" in the scientific method has to be taken as a given these days, it's just that when it comes to religion, the goalposts are shifted.

Reverend

Nikko said:

DLM said:

Reverend said:

Toast is god. 

http://underthetapestry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/JesusOnToast2.jpg

Bears a striking resemblance to Ola Englund, too....

And Tony Iommi...

Ah.. the complex metaphysics of the holy trinity. Toast, Marmite and Iommi.

Reverend

Our Father , Iommi be thy name. Our kingdom come, your riff be done, on earth as it is in Aston. Give us this day our daily toast, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgiven those who don't eat toast.. And lead us not into margarine, but deliver us from muesli.