[Closed] richard dawkins; faith school menace

I wouldn't - i find his obsessive and preachy brand of atheism just as terrifying as religious extremists.

What's terrifying about it?

It's a waste of a good brain, stating the obvious.

As an unbaptised and unchristned atheist I find his proselytising pretty embarrassing.

i find his obsessive and preachy brand of atheism just as terrifying as religious extremists

Agreed. Almost as scary as the Apple Zealots.

well on this one he has a very good point

The guys an idiot my child went to a faith school and I could not have paid for a better education now he is in one of top grammar schools in the country.

Just to add we are not religious at all and neither was religion forced unto us.

On the widespread practice of pretending to find God - which many parents do every year in order to secure their child a place in faith schools, which are often educationally outstanding - Dawkins, the author of books on evolution, such as The Selfish Gene and Climbing Mount Improbable, showed an unsurprisingly evolutionarily adaptive attitude.
"I don't want to cast any blame on them," he said. "It's hypocrisy that is imposed on them by a ridiculous and unjust system."
Dawkins even said that if he were in the same situation, he might do the same. "Since I have absolutely no belief at all, I wouldn't be betraying anything."

Well up to politician standards then..

super scale how was evolution handled at the school?

Well now I have seen what he said it seems fair enough. I do find him worrying on TV though. He really does come over as just another "religious" zealot.

super scale how was evolution handled at the school?

Well unless his children went to a small town school in the US Bible Belt, how do think it was handled ?

kimbers + 1

Not very demanding of our politicians, are we boys?

how do think it was handled ?

I'd be interested in the answer as oppose to a re-phrasing of the question. Or....

How do you think I think it was handled?

Well unless his children went to a small town
school in the US Bible Belt, how do think it
was handled ?

Well according to The Telegraph:

Two years ago a survey found that one in three
teachers believed creationism is just as valid
as evolution...

And given the push for new academies, where they will not be constrained by a national curriculum, I don't think it is an entirely unfounded worry that creationism may be taught as "science" in some schools.

i genuinely am interested, i have no idea, and my 1st child is on the way
the islamic school just shown handled it by saying we are not apes, which is a lie

Two years ago a survey found that one in three
teachers believed creationism is just as valid
as evolution...

It's irrelevant what teachers believe, creationism isn't taught in place of evolution in British schools.

From the same article : "Rev Prof Michael Reiss lost his job as director of education at the Royal Society after suggesting that creationism should be discussed in science lessons."

I can't comment on home schooling or Islamic education or any other obscure method of teaching though.

Advert for "Worship's Biggest Anthems" during the Richard Dawkins programme, and from HMV who were pushing the God Delusion last time I was in there. Awesome!
There is one God, and his name is Mammon!

Brilliant bit of media buying in the ads "worships biggest anthems". Xtian music, first time I've ever seen it advertised. Still seems to be money in it, do people still pay £11 for CDs?

Can't be doing with religious extremists of any cloth and Dawkins is one of the more extreme preachers I've seen.

You could argue from an academic (not just scientific) point of view that creationism is valid, as it's what some people believe just as firmly as evolution.

Once you start looking at it from a scientific point of view, then creationism looks on much shakier ground. Once creationists start to try and get scientific, then it gets ridiculous.

However, it's ultimately a belief, with reasons behind it - just like anything else. Do you see what I'm getting at? (No)

It's irrelevant what teachers believe, creationism isn't taught in place of evolution in British schools.

Creationism isn't taught as the National Curriculum.

But if we allow "academies" to move away from those constraints then they can teach what they like and what the teacher's believe becomes very important indeed.

Even ignoring that, kids aren't stupid. If a teacher doesn't believe in evolution then they can make that abundantly clear even if they are forced to teach it.

A bit like listening to my old Christian RE teacher, who clearly had a contractual obligation to tell us about other faiths, but made it fairly obvious that they were all just something that the silly foreigners believed and only her invisible skyperson made any sense.

My 'Thought for the day'; atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Given the abject stupidity, ignorance, misogynism and general ****wittery of just about every major religion, Dawkins is pure dead brilliant.

But if we allow "academies" to move away from those constraints then they can teach what they like and what the teacher's believe becomes very important indeed.

I'll remind you what the question was GrahamS : [i]"super scale how was evolution handled at the school?"[/i]

Not : [i]"How will your children be taught in the future"[/i]

[img] [/img]

the point is right now faith schools can teach whatever they like in RE lessons and RE is not covered by ofsted

Crikey +1

Dawkins points to another way of understanding society, one without violent, irrational and divisive religion, and that [i]is[/i] something I can believe in.

crikey - Member

My 'Thought for the day'; atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Given the abject stupidity, ignorance, misogynism and general ****wittery of just about every major religion, Dawkins is pure dead brilliant.

Class statement! Crikey +1

faith schools can teach whatever they like in RE lessons

LOL ! And you want to regulate their RE lessons ? ! Their religion ? ! 😀

Of course it isn't ****ing regulated by ofsted. Argue that RE lessons should be scrapped, if you want to, but don't suggest they should be "covered by ofsted", ffs.

Dawkins points to another way of understanding society, one with violent, irrational and divisive atheism, and that is something I can believe in.

Fixed that for you.

where did i say they should be covered by ofsted?
as you say scrapping them would be a great idea or better yet why not follow a national curriculum and leave the fairy storys for parents to tell at bed time?

mumbo jumbo is taking over the world, some of us are not happy about that, Dawkins is very good at expressing this.

Ahwiles - If by mumbo jumbo you mean religion, I think if you look at history you might well find it was slightly more influential in the past.

as you say scrapping them would be a great idea

I didn't say that.

Unlike some intolerant busybodies, I couldn't give a monkeys what other people believe or what they teach their children.

I am much more concerned with people who feel they have a right to interfere in other people's lifes.

We are God die you maggots [b]<--- [/b] :lol:[b] --->[/b] We are science die you maggots.

Just watching on the +1. Kicks of with the shock-doc love of stats and tells us that 1 in 3 schools in the UK are faith schools, then a few minutes later flashes up the finding of their specially commissioned survey that 59% of people want schools to be open people of any or no faith. Now setting aside the limp journalism of telling us the result of a survey without telling us what the question was or the available answers, lets say 59% is roughly 2/3rds.

So two thirds of people would like schools to be non/all/any faith and one third of schools are single faith.

Everybody's happy then

[i]I am much more concerned with people who feel they have a right to interfere in other people's lifes.[/i]

I think you meant 'lives'...

...and the above would appear to be a perfect description of the attitude taken towards non-believers by many believers...

It would be nice if we could get religion out of education all together; I recall drawing a picture of Pontius Pilate in RE, but no one ever told me how to write a cheque, or how to use my tongue while kissing, both of which have occupied far more of my time.

Faith schools are a disgrace though, there is a primary one in the village in which I grew up and I went to for a few years, do you know what they allow to happen now. Church volunteers are actually allowed to run an after school club so working mothers don't need to pay for childcare - how can this be allowed?

ernie, I couldn't give a monkeys what people teach their children either. But I'd rather faith was was left at the school gates. I'm not going to be a shouty atheist...but religion has no place in a school. If parents care that much about the beliefs of the child, let them and their church teach it. State funded schools shouldn't teach any religion at all.

religion is allowing a fixed set of beliefs to determine your identity and the way in which you live your life. In my books, dawkins is religious about his atheism. He believes there is no God, preaches on this topic and trys to share it with the world and convince others to believe it too. Dawkins is religious about his atheism in the same way that anyone who follows one of the main religions is.

surely the only school that would be unreligious would be one that said there are lots of thoughts and any of them may be right.

just my £0.02

[i]dawkins is religious about his atheism[/i]

See above....

Unlike some intolerant busybodies, I couldn't
give a monkeys what other people believe or what they teach their children.

Reeee-he-he-eeealy?

So taken to extremes you'd be quite comfortable for children to be taught that say, black people are inferior? Or that people without faith are agents of the devil? Or that they should gather arms and wait for the signal from the lizard people?

Lizards, now that's my kinda school...

On a slightly lighter note, I'm amazed that anyone thinks teaching religion to kids makes any difference at all; I was so cynical at that age about everything that it's a wonder I learnt anything at all....

I mean, come on, really, I mean really really, does anyone think that anyone actually believes the stuff that comes out in RE lessons or even assemblies?

State funded schools shouldn't teach any religion at all.

Don't think it's quite that black and white. Firstly parents who want their children to taught RE pay their taxes just like anyone else, and therefore are entitled to have an input in deciding what is taught to their children. And secondly, the state does not necessarily completely fund faith schools. Certainly in the case of land and buildings much if not all is provided by respective churches/synagogue/whatever. They also contribute financially in other ways. The price for pointless petty vindictiveness would be less money available for the whole education system, or a much higher bill.

So taken to extremes ....

Why do you have to take things to extremes GrahamS ? ...... tell me

As a card carrying atheist I think learning about religion is a vital part of children's education. Learning about religion isn't the same as indoctrination. Religion is a cultural / political thing, faith is something else. Religion has played a large part in the cultural and political history of our country and our legal and moral framework is a result of that, so understanding that is important

However, even as a fan of genetics and evolution, in my day to day life and work its totally irrelevant, as would be a believe in intelligent design. Science is much the same as religion in this respect - you don't need to believe in it in order to understand how it works. For anyone other than evolutionary biologists and theological students its only interesting but nothing more important than interesting.

Ernestovich, are you really arguing that the opium of the people be given to children without any thought or check?

Lenin will be like a kebab!

did you have to start this I've got an add for something god video lurking in the box where there should be wooden sheds - I don't really believe in wooden sheds they were the lesser of two evils

crikey,having grown up in Ireland and been schooled in a (lay) primary school, I can safely say that as kids, through a concentrated effort of Sunday Mass, a good hour of catechism everyday, prayers in the morning, Angelus at noon, prayers before going home, and then all this being reinforced by parents, that we believed every bit of it. Yeah, it started to dawn on me in my teens, but I went through a long period of agnosticism before deciding it was all bollocks in the end. There's a reason that people joke about catholic guilt...indoctrination runs deep when it starts at such an early age.

Well I see CFH is doing his usual ad hominem trick about people he doesn't agree with. Quite how you can say that

I find his obsessive and preachy brand of atheism just as terrifying as religious extremists.

“I would prefer to call it a free-thinking free school. I would never want to indoctrinate children in atheism, any more than in religion. Instead, children should be taught to ask for evidence, to be sceptical, critical, open-minded.”

Granted this is not what it was reported in the Telegraph among other places but we shouldn't let a silly thing like facts get in way.

+1 for skidartist. I was trying to work out how to say exactly that. Teaching religion(s) at school needs to be different from what would be taught at a church

Why do you have to take things to extremes
GrahamS ? ...... tell me

[i]Reductio ad absurdum[/i]

It demonstrates that what you said is patently untrue. You do care [i]to some degree[/i] what other people teach their kids, so all we are really arguing about is the suitable level of control over what they are taught.

I don't think you do reduce the argument to the absurd, because I don't believe those things doesn't mean I don't think parents have the right to send their kids to a school that teaches such things. I would question whether government money should be spent on them, but as no faith that teaches such beliefs is asking for government funding, that is an irrelevance too.

I find the whole thing fascinating...

I was brought up without religion, or as without religion as is possible in the UK over the last 40 odd years, and when I went to school I regarded it as a strange part of the whole education thing. My kids have been brought up the same way, not to be dismissive or insulting about religion, but to think of it as something that some people believe in.

I used to live 200 yards from a small C of E school, and when my daughter was born, I wandered down one day to see about her going there.

Basically, I was told that unless both me and my wife attended church for a certain minimum number of sundays, there was no chance of her getting in.

So my child can't attend the nearest school to our house, for primary education, because I don't go to church.

Time to view education as a means to prepare our children for life, rather than to fight a rearguard action to fill churches in the future with people who seem able to disregard the basic teachings of said religion...

Rich men entering heaven and camels passing through needles eyes.

Bollocks.

Ha ha Dawkins, hasn't he been married a few times?? Ostensibly a religious ceremony........

Religion has played a large part in the cultural and political history of our country and our legal and moral framework is a result of that, so understanding that is important

+1. It should only be taught in schools within this context. Nothing else.

I've said the Lords Prayer a few times, and been to quite a few funerals, and also say variants of Jesus ****ing Christ when I hit my thumb with a hammer. Social constructs like religion are quite pervasive, so would like to make your point more clearly?

I think Dawkins' point about morals is that they're memes rather than something for which we have to thank religion. If you take a lot of Jesus' teachings, they're more or less variants of the Golden Rule ie "Do unto others...", don't be overly judgmental, it's easier to love than to hate etc. These are all morals which the human race has evolved all over the planet, whatever beliefs they have or don't have. I think our children can be taught these things without the vehicle of faith schools to hammer the point home through fear or punishment in an afterlife.

crikey - Member

Ernestovich, are you really arguing that the opium of the people be given to children without any thought or check?

Lenin will be like a kebab!

How dare you question my Leninist credentials !!! 😀

Yeah, ironically I was thinking to myself "what a bunch of nasty Stalinists.......and I'm supposed to be the Tankie on here !" (a label which btw I proudly wear in the presence of Trots)

Yes I fully accept the concept of the "opium of the people". But this isn't the 1850s nor Tsarist Russia. I strongly believe that people should able to live their lives in whatever way they choose, as long as it isn't detrimental to me. And for example, a Jewish couple deciding they want to send their boy to a state funded Jewish school, does not in any way affect me. So I am perfectly prepared to defend their right to do so, against intolerant petty bigoted busybodies. hth

El-bent - Member
Religion has played a large part in the cultural and political history of our country and our legal and moral framework is a result of that, so understanding that is important
+1. It should only be taught in schools within this context. Nothing else.

No. I'd only say thats a +1/2
It should [s]only[/s] be taught in schools within this context. Not[s]hing[/s] [i]necessarily anything[/i] else

Understanding religion is important, understanding science is important, believing in either, neither or both is a personal preference. A school, whether religious or secular, can't make you believe in anything.

A school, whether religious or secular, can't make you believe in anything

I'd argue that a school can make a child young enough believe that black is white.

I used to live 200 yards from a small C of E school, and when my daughter was born, I wandered down one day to see about her going there.

Basically, I was told that unless both me and my wife attended church for a certain minimum number of sundays, there was no chance of her getting in.

So my child can't attend the nearest school to our house, for primary education, because I don't go to church.

I strongly believe such discrimination shouldn't be allowed in a modern society. And to think our taxes fund that school. 😕

As for Dawkins being as bad as religious extremists - bollox. Yes he's a bit shrill and annoying but come on...

I'd argue that a school can make a child young enough believe that black is white.

+1, children will believe most things they're taught or exposed to, be it god, father christmas, the tooth fairy etc etc. And like most things kids will figure it out for themselves as they grow.

A school, whether religious or secular, can't make you believe in anything.

I believe you...

it isn't detrimental to me.

Not quite understanding what religion does and what it's doing in schools there Ernie.

grum - but it is a deal, taxes fund some of the school, the land and buildings are owned by the church so they have the right to lay down an admissions policy in exchange for providing the land and building, you may not agree with it but it allowed the state to effectively get a school without building one. It is very easy to forget that the Church of England has been providing wide spread education for a lot longer than the state - although as the Queen is head of the Church of England it is part of the state.

grum - but it is a deal, taxes fund some of the school, the land and buildings are owned by the church so they have the right to lay down an admissions policy in exchange for providing the land and building, you may not agree with it but it allowed the state to effectively get a school without building one.

I'd quite happily pay more taxes so we didn't have to put up with this medieval bullshit. 😉

It's quite an issue where I live as most of the high schools are religious. I just don't understand why religions get to be exempt from normal anti-discrimination etc laws

Not quite understanding what religion does and what it's doing in schools there Ernie.

You see, that's my problem El-bent ............I never paid enough attention at school.

My entire education was 100% catholic.

You should know then that Catholic girls are best...or so I've heard. 😉

😐 Talking about my sister ?

A monkey should throw poo in his face.

mefty can I have a link to support your claim re schools I think the church may own the land but what is this formal deal you describe? They C of E just won the right to run a school near me beating the non denomination bid by the council so I think they have to buy the land to build the school but never heard of your deal before.
I think religion should be let in the home.
If people want to bring up their children [indoctrinate if you prefer] in a religion that is their business but I dont want to fund this under the oxymoron of education.
Religous schools have interesting policies on sex education,evolution, genesis, star formation and aids with very little [ I am being poilite they are wrong ] evidence and we pay them to deliver this .
You can choose to send you child to the nearest religous school [of you faith]to you if you are a non believer you cannot choose to send them to the nearest non religous school you go to the nearest even if it is religous. Not all equal under law sadly

does anyone think that anyone actually believes the stuff that comes out in RE lessons or even assemblies?

Firstly parents who want their children to taught RE pay their taxes just like anyone else, and therefore are entitled to have an input in deciding what is taught to their children.

Meanwhile, the churches are empty. Perhaps the 'believers' would be better off all round by their kids learning in a place of learning and worshipping in a place of worship?

Learning about religion isn't the same as indoctrination.

There's a reason that people joke about catholic guilt...indoctrination runs deep when it starts at such an early age.

hasn't he been married a few times?? Ostensibly a religious ceremony

gripping stuff guys; really it is.

Is woppit unwell?

Well maybe it's testiment to my personality but i love Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/Davies All of the athiest so called 'Preachers' i'd rather listen to. The only other person i like listening to is the Archbishop of Canterbury, what a guy.

Crickey + 1

The problem i found with RE in schools was there was no argument against it during lesson. No debate, just straight telling me how it is, granted it was a christian boarding school but asoon as i started philosophy in the 5th form it had both sides of the argument. Much more inspiring and informative.

Understanding religion is important, understanding science is important, believing in either, neither or both is a personal preference.

I'm sorry, believing in science? What part of science education did you miss? The scientific method removes the need for belief, what with all that empirical evidence.

Empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. That's what i believe. But then again without initial untested theories we wouldn't have proof. Still waiting for proof of god though after all these years. Waiting....Still Waiting. Anybody. Anbody got anything? a Sandiwich made by god? Maybe Jesus knitted you a nice jumper with a picture of himself on the front. no? oh right.....back the drawing board then.

Dawkins is religious about his atheism in the same way that anyone who follows one of the main religions is.

Yes, but he doesn't ask for special privilege; threaten others with death and dismemberment for not believing; nor prescribe doctrine from a 2000 year (or older) book written by some people high on whatever was smoked back then.

I have no objection to people who point out that we can never know how the universe came about (unless we duplicate it), but believing it was created especially for them by some bloke in a beard who LISTENS TO THEIR THOUGHTS is stupidity and arrogance on a mind-boggling level.

It really is - this shouldn't even be touched upon in schools, and teaching kids about other "faiths" is a pointless waste of time. Children, if brought up appropriately, should respect people's eccentricities anyway. They don't need to know all the bollocks about it in the name of inclusiveness and cultural understanding. Much, much, more useful things could be done in that time - even something as boring as volunteering in the local community. Now *that* would be useful - 3200 schools * 1500 students * 2 hours a week...

And don't get me started on parents who indoctrinate their children in the way of their cult. Baptism / circumcision / other bollocks etc. Your child is no more a member of your religion than they are a member of the postal workers union. Wait until they're 16, give them a copy of the book, and ask them to make their own mind up.

As you might have gathered from this rant, I have no objection to religion per se. I, however, can't stand the idea that we're supposed to respect these views in public and appropriate special treatment, nor that people who haven't got the capacity to understand them are indoctrinated into them.

May God go with you.

Is woppit unwell?

Should have an automatic post if Woppit hasn't responded to a thread about religion within a few minutes of it starting.

[b]'Mr Woppit is Unwell'.[/b]