Religion in School

CabbageCat

We are all brainwashed to an extent. How many of us say "bless you" when someone sneezes? Or look for a second magpie? Or avoid walking under ladders?

They are silly things that just become second nature to people.

Not really making a point here, since I agree with both sides on the brainwashing argument. Yes, I do think faith schools brainwash people, but brainwashing isn't necessarily a malicious or damaging thing.

Sporky

CabbageCat said:

You did say that believing that there is no God is not a belief. That was the only thing I had a problem with. 

I think quite often it turns into a question of wording.

From one atheist's point of view, it's not a positive belief in the non-existence of a god (because that presupposes that existence). It's a rejection of the claims for the existence of a god.

CabbageCat

Troy said:

Two things, it's called the theory of evolution as it's not proved factual though is the most reasonable theory to explain us. Also, I'm pretty sure that religion is the cause of shed loads of deaths.

It sort of has been proven to a degree. Evolution has been witnessed in action. I could be wrong but I think that it is proven enough to be considered a scientific fact.

Sporky

english_bob said:

Sporky said:

Naturalism isn't the same thing as the scientific method - hence them having different Wikipedia pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Yes, but the idea that we should put faith in the scientific method to answer questions about reality is naturalism.

Or, arguably, Scientism

Either way, a belief system.

That's really reaching.

When I press the button at a pedestrian crossing, I believe that the lights will then switch in my favour, and I have faith that the cars will then stop and I will be able to cross safely.

You're effectively saying that I am therefore religious.

lloyd

BigMonka said:

Jalapeno said:

We ought to calm the f*ck down a bit - sending kids to faith schools is a sure fire way of ensuring they don't become a believer.  My own Catholic upbringing as an anecdote - ensured a cohort of my peers exposed to self-serving hypocrites, I wouldn't deny anyone a chance for anyone to scratch their own spiritual itch, but a Catholic education pretty much garunteed that most who endured it rejected (organised at least) religion.

You know what, that's the funny thing about the whole debate. I can't think of anyone I know who has a religious belief because it was taught at school, it's way more common to be the opposite.

I personally think that awareness of all religions should be taught in schools, but nothing more than awareness. I say this as a Christian. You just have to look at discussions like this thread and how many people think that the main point of the bible and christianity is to tell people they're going to hell - I don't think that anyone needs to be brought up with that as a main philosophy. Gospel means "good news", Jesus spent the majority of his time being positive, kind, generous to people and healing them and doing miracles, but that's not what people are taught in schools - teaching guilt and condemnation to kids is messed up!

Hmmm, the end game in Christianity is Hell of Heaven, that's the only thing to really take out of it.

Yeah you can spend three score year and ten on the planet being a super cool nice guy, but the real meat in the pie is what's going to happen for the next eternity of years.

Believe and you go to Heaven, don't and you go to Hell-it really is that black and white-what's the purpose of it otherwise?

You can dress it up however you like, but if you believe in the Christian god, he put us here so that we would worship him and believe in him, those that did are rewarded with eternal life in Heaven.

Jesus himself gives us that message, I can be the nicest guy on the planet, save a million lives, do good deeds till the cows go home, but if I'm told about god and don't believe, I'm cursed to an eternity of red hot pokers up the arsehole.....It's a bloody awful world philosophy.

Where do you go from giving a child a Christian education when they ask what happens to those that don't go to Heaven.....you're stuck with the Bible's truth (which is a disgusting thing to teach a child) or you lie or try to avoid the question and tell them how cool Jesus was because of all the nice things he did so we should be the same in this life.

Eventually you have to teach them the guilt and condemnation as you state because thats where all Christian roads lead to.

CabbageCat

Sporky said:

CabbageCat said:

You did say that believing that there is no God is not a belief. That was the only thing I had a problem with. 

I think quite often it turns into a question of wording.

From one atheist's point of view, it's not a positive belief in the non-existence of a god (because that presupposes that existence). It's a rejection of the claims for the existence of a god.

Yes. I was not arguing against atheism or what people choose to believe. I was arguing a very specific point. Much of what has been said since appears to assume that I was arguing a wider one as well - which I wasn't and am not.

p90fool

Jalapeno said:

We ought to calm the f*ck down a bit - sending kids to faith schools is a sure fire way of ensuring they don't become a believer.  My own Catholic upbringing as an anecdote - ensured a cohort of my peers exposed to self-serving hypocrites, I wouldn't deny anyone a chance for anyone to scratch their own spiritual itch, but a Catholic education pretty much garunteed that most who endured it rejected (organised at least) religion.

Exactly my wife's experience. Being beaten by nuns on a regular basis didn't make her any more a Catholic than it makes me a pervert. 

Damn. 

Jalapeno

BigMonka said:

Jalapeno said:

We ought to calm the f*ck down a bit - sending kids to faith schools is a sure fire way of ensuring they don't become a believer.  My own Catholic upbringing as an anecdote - ensured a cohort of my peers exposed to self-serving hypocrites, I wouldn't deny anyone a chance for anyone to scratch their own spiritual itch, but a Catholic education pretty much garunteed that most who endured it rejected (organised at least) religion.

You know what, that's the funny thing about the whole debate. I can't think of anyone I know who has a religious belief because it was taught at school, it's way more common to be the opposite.

I personally think that awareness of all religions should be taught in schools, but nothing more than awareness. I say this as a Christian. You just have to look at discussions like this thread and how many people think that the main point of the bible and christianity is to tell people they're going to hell - I don't think that anyone needs to be brought up with that as a main philosophy. Gospel means "good news", Jesus spent the majority of his time being positive, kind, generous to people and healing them and doing miracles, but that's not what people are taught in schools - teaching guilt and condemnation to kids is messed up!

One thing I will give the school credit for is that religion was confined to RE lessons (half hour a week), which consisted mainly of interesting discussions on morals, and mind-numbingly dull bible reading.  Science was taught, not a whiff of creationism, we had early exposure to sex education, and discussed contraception - and this was a Catholic School run by Nuns in the 1970s.

lloyd

Jalapeno said:

BigMonka said:

Jalapeno said:

We ought to calm the f*ck down a bit - sending kids to faith schools is a sure fire way of ensuring they don't become a believer.  My own Catholic upbringing as an anecdote - ensured a cohort of my peers exposed to self-serving hypocrites, I wouldn't deny anyone a chance for anyone to scratch their own spiritual itch, but a Catholic education pretty much garunteed that most who endured it rejected (organised at least) religion.

You know what, that's the funny thing about the whole debate. I can't think of anyone I know who has a religious belief because it was taught at school, it's way more common to be the opposite.

I personally think that awareness of all religions should be taught in schools, but nothing more than awareness. I say this as a Christian. You just have to look at discussions like this thread and how many people think that the main point of the bible and christianity is to tell people they're going to hell - I don't think that anyone needs to be brought up with that as a main philosophy. Gospel means "good news", Jesus spent the majority of his time being positive, kind, generous to people and healing them and doing miracles, but that's not what people are taught in schools - teaching guilt and condemnation to kids is messed up!

One thing I will give the school credit for is that religion was confined to RE lessons (half hour a week), which consisted mainly of interesting discussions on morals, and mind-numbingly dull bible reading.  Science was taught, not a whiff of creationism, we had early exposure to sex education, and discussed contraception - and this was a Catholic School run by Nuns in the 1970s.

That's pretty much how things are done now in mainstream schools though no? It's certainly my experience of school-1990's secular school-hymns in weekly assembly had a Christian edge I suppose but I guess that's changed now and would be different in a more diverse area (North Wales back then was very white/Christian, still is I guess).

fretmeister

english_bob said:

Sporky said:

Naturalism isn't the same thing as the scientific method - hence them having different Wikipedia pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Yes, but the idea that we should put faith in the scientific method to answer questions about reality is naturalism.

Or, arguably, Scientism

Either way, a belief system.

A system to test ideas is not a belief system. It is a method of obtaining data. That data might be useful, not useful, expected, unexpected.

Faith is the maintaining of a position irrespective of evidence.

If an engineer sits down and draws a cool shape for a purpose, and does some proper maths he trusts that the maths are accurate as they are repeatable by others.

Then he builds the thing he has drawn. He is still trusting that the scientific method will give him the expected results.

Then he tests the thing, which in this case is an aircraft wing. The plane doesn't fall out of the sky. At this point the concept has been proven and the method has shown his calculations were correct.

If it falls out of the sky the concept was flawed but there is nothing wrong with the testing method itself. The method has still provided accurate data - it's just that the answer (the plane falling from the sky) was not useful or desirable. 


BUT the plan falling from the sky is not a poor reflection on the testing system itself. 

The SM provides data only. What is done with that data might be part of a belief system. but the way of obtaining the data is not.

There is no faith in the scientific method. It is simply a method that for hundreds of years has resulted in the collection of data, that data then being subject to further testing.


But let's say you are right (you are not) - do you have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow?

Or do you have a valid expectation that the sun will come up based upon your review of the evidence that the sun has come up every day for about 4.94 billion years and that there is no evidence to suggest imminent change?

You may say "faith" but really you have an idea, which turned into a hypothesis, which was carefully considered with the available evidence to allow you to come up with (probably) 2 possible outcomes (sun comes up or doesn't) to which you then applied a weighting (4.94 billion consecutive instances* against zero absences) noting that although there are 2 possible results they are not equiprobable, to a ratio of 4.94 billion to 1. That lets you have a conclusion that the sun will come up tomorrow with such a high level of certainty that the other possible outcome can be safely and legitimately ignored.

That's not faith. That's the scientific method.


* EDIT AND CORRECTION

4.94 billion years is of course one trillion, eight hundred and three billion, one hundred million days / instances of the sun coming up.

Drew_TNBD

Troy said:

Two things, it's called the theory of evolution as it's not proved factual though is the most reasonable theory to explain us. Also, I'm pretty sure that religion is the cause of shed loads of deaths.

I'm afraid that is just your misunderstanding of what the word 'theory' means in a scientific context. Theories ARE proven to some measure. Hypotheses are not.

fretmeister

CabbageCat said:

Troy said:

Two things, it's called the theory of evolution as it's not proved factual though is the most reasonable theory to explain us. Also, I'm pretty sure that religion is the cause of shed loads of deaths.

It sort of has been proven to a degree. Evolution has been witnessed in action. I could be wrong but I think that it is proven enough to be considered a scientific fact.

The Lenski Experiments have proven it.

1 species into another over hundreds of generations across 20 odd years.

It is still a theory though, because "theory" has more than 1 definition. 

The Germ Theory of Disease, The Theory of Gravity, The Theory of Evolution.

All theories with so much supporting evidence that to find anything contrary would be earth-shatteringly unlikely. 

Drew_TNBD

CabbageCat said:

Sporky said:

CabbageCat said:

You did say that believing that there is no God is not a belief. That was the only thing I had a problem with. 

I think quite often it turns into a question of wording.

From one atheist's point of view, it's not a positive belief in the non-existence of a god (because that presupposes that existence). It's a rejection of the claims for the existence of a god.

Yes. I was not arguing against atheism or what people choose to believe. I was arguing a very specific point. Much of what has been said since appears to assume that I was arguing a wider one as well - which I wasn't and am not.

You're just flat out incorrect on that point CC. Atheism is not a belief. It's an absence of belief. The two states of mind are totally different. One is 0, the other is 1.

And Atheism is the default position of the human brain. Just as no child is born a racist, no child is born religious either.

lloyd

fretmeister said:

english_bob said:

Sporky said:

Naturalism isn't the same thing as the scientific method - hence them having different Wikipedia pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Yes, but the idea that we should put faith in the scientific method to answer questions about reality is naturalism.

Or, arguably, Scientism

Either way, a belief system.

A system to test ideas is not a belief system. It is a method of obtaining data. That data might be useful, not useful, expected, unexpected.

Faith is the maintaining of a position irrespective of evidence.

If an engineer sits down and draws a cool shape for a purpose, and does some proper maths he trusts that the maths are accurate as they are repeatable by others.

Then he builds the thing he has drawn. He is still trusting that the scientific method will give him the expected results.

Then he tests the thing, which in this case is an aircraft wing. The plane doesn't fall out of the sky. At this point the concept has been proven and the method has shown his calculations were correct.

If it falls out of the sky the concept was flawed but there is nothing wrong with the testing method itself. The method has still provided accurate data - it's just that the answer (the plane falling from the sky) was not useful or desirable. 


BUT the plan falling from the sky is not a poor reflection on the testing system itself. 

The SM provides data only. What is done with that data might be part of a belief system. but the way of obtaining the data is not.

There is no faith in the scientific method. It is simply a method that for hundreds of years has resulted in the collection of data, that data then being subject to further testing.


But let's say you are right (you are not) - do you have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow?

Or do you have a valid expectation that the sun will come up based upon your review of the evidence that the sun has come up every day for about 4.94 billion years and that there is no evidence to suggest imminent change?

You may say "faith" but really you have an idea, which turned into a hypothesis, which was carefully considered with the available evidence to allow you to come up with (probably) 2 possible outcomes (sun comes up or doesn't) to which you then applied a weighting (4.94 billion consecutive instances against zero absences) noting that although there are 2 possible results they are not equiprobable, to a ratio of 4.94 billion to 1. That lets you have a conclusion that the sun will come up tomorrow with such a high level of certainty that the other possible outcome can be safely and legitimately ignored.

That's not faith. That's the scientific method.

Wiz.

That's what I've been trying to say with much less eloquence.

Drew_TNBD

english_bob said:

Drew_TNBD said:

english_bob said:

Drew_TNBD said:

I don't see any hateful stuff.

All I see is one thin-skinned ninny trying to make a martyr of himself.

Which is probably my cue to walk away and go find something guitar related to talk about. 

You've made several statements here that are just hogwash. Like Christians being a minority for instance... almost, but not quite:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/detailed-characteristics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/sty-religion.html

Don't worry though. It's going down. We're making progress and slowly evolving past that old archaic idiocy. We've just got to stop importing Islam and we're golden I feel!

I think church attendance is a better measure of the number of practicing Christians in the UK

That's called moving the goalposts, and for extra bonus points it's also a no true Scotsman fallacy! You're doing very well sir!

Troy

Drew_TNBD said:

Troy said:

Two things, it's called the theory of evolution as it's not proved factual though is the most reasonable theory to explain us. Also, I'm pretty sure that religion is the cause of shed loads of deaths.

I'm afraid that is just your misunderstanding of what the word 'theory' means in a scientific context. Theories ARE proven to some measure. Hypotheses are not.

I did say that it is the most reasonable theory to explain us though? And like you said "theories are proven to some measure", so it's not an absolute fact unlike the moon is round (and I know it's not perfectly round before someone points it out).

Anyway, fuck religion and the wars caused by it.

lloyd

Troy said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Troy said:

Two things, it's called the theory of evolution as it's not proved factual though is the most reasonable theory to explain us. Also, I'm pretty sure that religion is the cause of shed loads of deaths.

I'm afraid that is just your misunderstanding of what the word 'theory' means in a scientific context. Theories ARE proven to some measure. Hypotheses are not.

I did say that it is the most reasonable theory to explain us though? And like you said "theories are proven to some measure", so it's not an absolute fact unlike the moon is round (and I know it's not perfectly round before someone points it out).

Anyway, fuck religion and the wars caused by it.

Without wanting to sound like a cunt but there are no absolute facts, on some level the assertion that the moon is round is still a theory in a scientific term because new information could come out that disproves it, as unlikely as that is.

Evolution is probably only a few degrees behind in it's being a "fact" it's that nailed on.

CabbageCat

Drew_TNBD said:

CabbageCat said:

Sporky said:

CabbageCat said:

You did say that believing that there is no God is not a belief. That was the only thing I had a problem with. 

I think quite often it turns into a question of wording.

From one atheist's point of view, it's not a positive belief in the non-existence of a god (because that presupposes that existence). It's a rejection of the claims for the existence of a god.

Yes. I was not arguing against atheism or what people choose to believe. I was arguing a very specific point. Much of what has been said since appears to assume that I was arguing a wider one as well - which I wasn't and am not.

You're just flat out incorrect on that point CC. Atheism is not a belief. It's an absence of belief. The two states of mind are totally different. One is 0, the other is 1.

And Atheism is the default position of the human brain. Just as no child is born a racist, no child is born religious either.

Did you just say that as an illustration of someone assuming that I'm arguing a wider point as a sort of joke?

In case you didn't: I was not arguing against atheism. Not. Not. Not.

The absence of belief is absolutely not a belief. 100% agree. Never questioned it. The belief of an absence, however, is a belief. You agree with that, right? It's not the same sort of belief as believing in God, sure, but it's still taking a position when the true position is actually unknown.

fields5069

This quote from Hitchens sums up why I think something should be said if a teacher is, in a non-faith school, found to be spouting opinion as fact:

“By all means let an observant Jewish adult male have his raw-cut penis placed in the mouth of a rabbi. (That would be legal, at least in New York.) By all means let grown women who distrust their clitoris or their labia have them sawn away by some other wretched adult female. By all means let Abraham offer to commit filicide to prove his devotion to the Lord or his belief in the voices he was hearing in his head. By all means let devout parents deny themselves the succor of medicine when in acute pain and distress. By all means—for all I care—let a priest sworn to celibacy be a promiscuous homosexual. By all means let a congregation that believes in whipping out the devil choose a new grown-up sinner each week and lash him until he or she bleeds. By all means let anyone who believes in creationism instruct his fellows during lunch breaks. But the conscription of the unprotected child for these purposes is something that even the most dedicated secularist can safely describe as a sin.”

I agree it's a bit heavy, but there is a principle at stake. By stopping the proliferation of mildly offensive lies you also stop the proliferation of dangerous indoctrination.

lloyd

CabbageCat said:

Drew_TNBD said:

CabbageCat said:

Sporky said:

CabbageCat said:

You did say that believing that there is no God is not a belief. That was the only thing I had a problem with. 

I think quite often it turns into a question of wording.

From one atheist's point of view, it's not a positive belief in the non-existence of a god (because that presupposes that existence). It's a rejection of the claims for the existence of a god.

Yes. I was not arguing against atheism or what people choose to believe. I was arguing a very specific point. Much of what has been said since appears to assume that I was arguing a wider one as well - which I wasn't and am not.

You're just flat out incorrect on that point CC. Atheism is not a belief. It's an absence of belief. The two states of mind are totally different. One is 0, the other is 1.

And Atheism is the default position of the human brain. Just as no child is born a racist, no child is born religious either.

Did you just say that as an illustration of someone assuming that I'm arguing a wider point as a sort of joke?

In case you didn't: I was not arguing against atheism. Not. Not. Not.

The absence of belief is absolutely not a belief. 100% agree. Never questioned it. The belief of an absence, however, is a belief. You agree with that, right? It's not the same sort of belief as believing in God, sure, but it's still taking a position when the true position is actually unknown.

This is semantics again, you seem to always want to get down to the minutiae of language and word play, the argument here is that atheism is not a belief or a belief system, taking god and atheism out of it belief in an absence can be called a belief yes.