But what, exactly?

[footprints]

Ah, I'm sorry Footprints, please forgive my clumsy mistake. I'll be very pleased to continue this with Riverwolf.


Okay, now as to your invitation to 'listen and learn.' May I make the point that listening and learning is not a one-way street. Everyone has something to learn and something to teach.


And I'm sorry but mandatory religious instruction is indoctrination because it brooks no dissent. I am also saying that applies to parents where the child isn't permitted to doubt or question the dogma.

You can of course make the point that listening and leaning is not a one way street. The secret is knowing when to listen and when to teach. What is it that you want to teach and spread, love, kindness and respect for a fellow human beings belief, or self respect for your own beliefs only.

Like riverwolf has already said to you, all families indoctrinate their children if you want to look at life through the eyes of indoctination. Some families believe a child must be in bed by 6:00pm, others say 7:00 and others 8:00pm and later. Which indoctrination is right? Many parents are divided on how their children should be indoctrinated which causes them many fights, some say spare the rod and spoil the child whilst others say there is never an excuse for abuse, so which one of these indoctrination techniques is right?

A child has a right to make up their own mind.

 

[Willamena]

I’m referring to the legal requirement for all schools in the UK to incorporate religious instruction in their syllabuses. But I could give a personal account of my own school attendance, together with the impressions I had then? It’s a bit boring, though.

That's not necessary (of course). I was referring to your statements that children in the UK are not encouraged to think critically about religion, to challenge views, or to engage Christian mythology.

 

[sojourner]

You have to actually get in your car or climb into an aircraft and go out and drive at 30mph, or fly at a speed in excess of 741, mph to see if it is possible to breathe at 30mph or break the sound barrier.

And you have to actually get down on your knees and contemplate to see if it is possible that spiritual experiences exist outside of reason and proof.

Secondly, if you want to insist that it is ‘closed minded’ not to treat metaphysical systems as if they were true then that reasoning must apply to all metaphysical notions including those that contradict your own!

You have no idea what contradicts or supports my own spirituality.

And let me ask you in what way can a person be ‘closed-minded to the possibilities of human spirit’ and ‘developing to the fullest’, when you offer no reason at all to suppose those things exist? Being closed-minded is refusing to consider evidence or listen to argument. Well, I’m more than ready to hear what you’ve got to say on the matter!

I've given you reason on several occasions. Until you decide to "see for yourself," you are refusing to consider the evidence or listen to the arguments I've provided.

The boundaries you speak of effectively shut off an internal belief system from logic and the world of reason and facts.

Good! It's high time those walls came down.

I don’t for a minute doubt you believe it, but they are not truths.

Prove it.
::taps foot, looks at watch.::
Didn't think so.

That’s outrageous and mistaken. Do you honestly believe that immersing a child in religion, or any dogma, somehow benefits their critical thinking, when we all know that the object of indoctrination is to influence and mould the child’s thinking so that it doesn’t criticise what it’s been taught?

The Anglican Communion (and I assume the worship services would be under the auspices of the C of E) does not operate that way. Anglicans are taught to question and to think critically about their faith. But then, you wouldn't honestly know that, would you! Proves my point. One can't effectively critique a system unless one knows the system.

The plain fact of the matter is that children are being taught to worship a thing that has no proven existence.

Duh! If it had an existence provable by humanity it wouldn't be worthy of worship.

Young children need to distinguish between truth and fantasy

You're probably one of those insufferable realists who tells little children there is no Santa Claus.

disgracefully they are not permitted to question the supposed truth of what they are being taught.

If that's truly the case, then it is disgraceful.

Mystical beliefs aren’t true,

Again, prove that.

we have no right to impress those beliefs on young children without allowing the child to question the supposed truth.

Again, you can't critique what your don't know about.

people have the perfect right to their beliefs and the comforts they derive from them.

However, what I strongly object to is the manipulation of children's minds by those who see fit to impose dogmatic beliefs on them as if they were a certain truth.

Well, congratulations! You've effectively outlawed the propagation religion. May cynical atheists everywhere bow and scrape whenever your Name is mentioned.

People have the right to their faith, but their faith must not be imparted as if it were true???
Might I ask: In what other way can faith be imparted? Or practiced?

They are not!

Prove that they are not.

And as this is a debating forum I reserve the right to challenge anyone on the subject of 'truth', as it applies to religious beliefs.

And we reserve the right to demand proof that religious belief is not truth.

 

[cottage]

What's wrong with religious instruction?

Absolutely nothing as far as I'm concerned if that's what adults want for themselves. My only objection is children being subjected to it. Some schools, including my own, changed the name of the lessons to 'Religious knowledge', and then later to the more general 'Religious Education', which at least made it sound less of an imposition.

Many teachers (the profession in the UK is predominately left-wing) hated having to teach religion. I remember one teacher with great fondness and respect who had an extraordinary ability to hold our attention and to impart knowledge in his own special way. (On reflection I strongly suspect that he leaned towards communism.) But anyway, he was given the unenvious responsibility of teaching religion to our year. Now although he dutifully followed the outline of his instructions he was a renegade who introduced an element of scepticsm into his teaching. He simply would not accept the possibility of miracles and offered (what he considered to be) rational arguments to explain them.

At the age of nine I already viewed Christianity as just a story (quite liked all that 'turn the other cheek' and 'love thy neighbour' stuff, though, and still do!) and I found it refreshing to see reason brought into the religious arena for the very first time. Mr Stone, God bless you, Sir!

 

[cottage]

That's not necessary (of course). I was referring to your statements that children in the UK are not encouraged to think critically about religion, to challenge views, or to engage Christian mythology.

Happily, there is good reason to believe that is all changing. I can see the day, in the not too distant future, when the law will be repealed. In fact there are any number of schools that now have no act of daily worship, in spite of the law. In fairness, I can see what the difficulty has been. Staff were (still are in fact) under an obligation to teach the fundamental principles of the Christian faith, which are held to be true. Under those circumstances you simply couldn't have a free-for-all discussion with some pupils denouncing the principles as fairy tales and uttering their disbelief. Now, some schools have now introduced lessons where the children look at the different faiths, and there is no suggestion on the part of staff that any of them are the correct religion or that they must be believed. Common sense prevails...slowly!

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Ah, I'm sorry Footprints, please forgive my clumsy mistake. I'll be very pleased to continue this with Riverwolf.


Okay, now as to your invitation to 'listen and learn.' May I make the point that listening and learning is not a one-way street. Everyone has something to learn and something to teach.


And I'm sorry but mandatory religious instruction is indoctrination because it brooks no dissent. I am also saying that applies to parents where the child isn't permitted to doubt or question the dogma.



Footprints; You can of course make the point that listening and leaning is not a one way street. The secret is knowing when to listen and when to teach. What is it that you want to teach and spread, love, kindness and respect for a fellow human beings belief, or self respect for your own beliefs only.

Isn’t that a rather superior reply? What may I ask is this ‘secret’ knowledge that presume to instruct us on what to teach and when to learn?

It is generally considered that having self-respect enables one to have respect for others. And beliefs like arguments have no automatic, special right to be respected or protected. All beliefs stand or fall according to the weight of received opinion and any counter claims or argument.


Footprints: Like riverwolf has already said to you, all families indoctrinate their children if you want to look at life through the eyes of indoctrination. Some families believe a child must be in bed by 6:00pm, others say 7:00 and others 8:00pm and later. Which indoctrination is right? Many parents are divided on how their children should be indoctrinated which causes them many fights, some say spare the rod and spoil the child whilst others say there is never an excuse for abuse, so which one of these indoctrination techniques is right?

I’m sorry but you appear to have a different understanding of what is meant by indoctrination. If on being told it is time for bed a child were to ask ‘Why must I go to bed so early when grown-ups go to bed so much later? most parents would explain that it is because a child’s body is still developing and it needs more sleep in order to grow into healthy adulthood. Indoctrination is an insidious term and means the teaching of something that cannot be questioned and must be accepted blindly and uncritically. The early bedtimes are good practice, and although the exact hours may be questioned, the parents are broadly correct in their insistence, not because of a blind dogma, but because there is good reason for it, which is explicable, and thoroughly proved in experience.

 

[Storm]

Absolutely nothing as far as I'm concerned if that's what adults want for themselves. My only objection is children being subjected to it. Some schools, including my own, changed the name of the lessons to 'Religious knowledge', and then later to the more general 'Religious Education', which at least made it sound less of an imposition.

But understanding religion is just as important as understanding history. Ignorance is NEVER beneficial.

Many teachers (the profession in the UK is predominately left-wing) hated having to teach religion. I remember one teacher with great fondness and respect who had an extraordinary ability to hold our attention and to impart knowledge in his own special way. (On reflection I strongly suspect that he leaned towards communism.) But anyway, he was given the unenvious responsibility of teaching religion to our year. Now although he dutifully followed the outline of his instructions he was a renegade who introduced an element of scepticsm into his teaching. He simply would not accept the possibility of miracles and offered (what he considered to be) rational arguments to explain them.

At the age of nine I already viewed Christianity as just a story (quite liked all that 'turn the other cheek' and 'love thy neighbour' stuff, though, and still do!) and I found it refreshing to see reason brought into the religious arena for the very first time. Mr Stone, God bless you, Sir!

I think he overstepped his bounds, but whatever.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Absolutely nothing as far as I'm concerned if that's what adults want for themselves. My only objection is children being subjected to it. Some schools, including my own, changed the name of the lessons to 'Religious knowledge', and then later to the more general 'Religious Education', which at least made it sound less of an imposition.

Storm: But understanding religion is just as important as understanding history. Ignorance is NEVER beneficial.

Can I press you on that? What is it that, in your opinion, is important to understand about religion? And what do you think the role of schools should be?

Quote:
Many teachers (the profession in the UK is predominately left-wing) hated having to teach religion. I remember one teacher with great fondness and respect who had an extraordinary ability to hold our attention and to impart knowledge in his own special way. (On reflection I strongly suspect that he leaned towards communism.) But anyway, he was given the unenvious responsibility of teaching religion to our year. Now although he dutifully followed the outline of his instructions he was a renegade who introduced an element of scepticism into his teaching. He simply would not accept the possibility of miracles and offered (what he considered to be) rational arguments to explain them.

At the age of nine I already viewed Christianity as just a story (quite liked all that 'turn the other cheek' and 'love thy neighbour' stuff, though, and still do!) and I found it refreshing to see reason brought into the religious arena for the very first time. Mr Stone, God bless you, Sir!

Storm: I think he overstepped his bounds, but whatever.

He certainly did from a contractual point of view, but it was exciting and stimulating to be allowed to consider possibilities independent of the dogma. Bravo!

 

[Falvlun]

I think he overstepped his bounds, but whatever.

I don't understand why it is ok to teach children what a religion says, but not ok to mention that there are other ways to interpret those beliefs, or to approach those beliefs with a critical mind.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
The very reason for my starting this thread is the fact of mandatory religious instruction in British schools, which presumes to inform young minds that there is a supernatural being


Sojourner: Wel... there is. We can't help it if you can't see it.

Very obviously you can’t see it either, otherwise you’d have proper and convincing arguments, rather that just one-line retorts. The conclusion, which is a reasonable one, is that you don’t know what you claim to know.

Quote:
What should the propositions 'possibly there is no God' or 'there is no logical or rational reason to suppose God exists' be put out of bounds to the children?

Sojourner: I don't understand the question. Did you mean "why" instead of "what?"
If so, then they need to be out of bounds by reason of your own criterion: We don't know those statements to be true.

Just consider what you’ve said there. You think ‘possibly there is no God’ and ‘There is no logical or rational reason to suppose God exists’ should be out of bounds to children ‘ because we don’t know those statements to be true, and yet you expect children to believe in God as an undeniable truth! How do we know that to be true?
And note that the first proposition, ‘possibly there is no God’ makes no claims to truth, and the second, like any proposition, invites contradiction – see if you can come up with one?

Quote:
Superstitious beliefs take many forms, some have elements of truth about them and some may even be proved correct on the odd occasion. What they all have in common, however, is a strong conviction that owes more to faith than reason. Religious beliefs are no different in this respect.

Sojourner: Yes, they are, since religious beliefs are based, not upon a misunderstanding, but upon a certain way of understanding the world. There's a whole different paradigm at work in religious understanding. When that paradigm is compromised, then the beliefs can disintegrate into superstition, but the beliefs are not, in and of themselves, superstition.

Well, I don’t know what you thought it was you were saying there but it makes no sense at all. The belief may well be based on a way of understanding the world, but that understanding is based on having faith in the supernatural. The belief is therefore superstitious.

Quote:
That’s just a facile remark! As I said, there are no facts.

Sojourner: What?! It's not a fact that Christians believe what they believe? I'm a Christian and I certainly do believe what I believe! that is a fact.

Now, now, don’t be absurd! You know very well that I was saying there are no facts in superstitious beliefs, not that your believing in them isn’t a fact. I can’t imagine what you expected to achieve by such a silly ploy.

Quote:
Yes, that is correct, but only in the case of children.

Sojourner:Because you'd rather see skepticism rather than faith inculcated in them.

You really don’t understand my position on this at all. The problem is that you only seem to understand scepticism in very narrow terms of how you perceive it as opposing your religious beliefs. Scepticism is a very healthy thing and all children should be taught how to analyse, criticise and question everything. But that most certainly does not mean opposing everything with a cynical mind. So yes, children should be taught how to critically assess what they are taught, but they must not be taught that there are some things that should be accepted uncritically or that their not understanding something has merit or virtue.


Quote:
My argument remains the same. Describing and comparing religions may useful, or even necessary in multi-faith communities, such as we have in the UK, but schools shouldn’t be sanctioning or commenting on spiritual matters.

Sojourner: Admittedly, I'm not well-versed in state/religion nuances in Britain. On the surface, it seems that if the state sanctions the C of E, then the state is, ostensibly, a Christian state. Since the Monarch is "Defender of the Faith," it stands to reason that Parliament would support that title by seeing to it that the law defends the faith in the teaching of children.

Could you, being British, take a little time to further explain the state/religion relationship for all of us on this side of the pond? Otherwise, we may be arguing ideologies that are just not reality.

I can see you’ve already got a good grasp of the principles. But the contradiction is that although the nation has an established Church with the Queen at its head, Britain is only notionally Christian and faith among the indigenous population is in decline. The Anglican Church is weakened and resorts to relativism and attempts to be all things to all men; it is not at all unusual for the (tiny) congregations of two or three parishes to have to share a single vicar.

Unlike America, here in Britain it is just not done to mention God, and in most settings such an utterance would be met with embarrassed silence, polite coughs, or s******ing. Meanwhile other religions appear to be growing. Although the religious education law remains on the statute books, it can’t be said that Parliament or the law enforces it; in fact the government is more intent on sucking up to Islam than protecting the nation’s traditions. While it is no exaggeration to say Christians in a supposedly Christian country are being persecuted, and (recently) even prosecuted for publicly announcing their beliefs, it still remains that we have a bad law that infringes the rights of children to be free of dogma.
__________________

 

[Storm]

What is it that, in your opinion, is important to understand about religion?

How it shapes the world, from international politics to local multicultualism.

And what do you think the role of schools should be?

At a minimum, to teach children the basic tenets of the major world faiths. NOT indoctrinate them, or force them to worship. Just: "Christians believe X. Muslims believe Y."

Ideally, I'd like to see it become part of the core curriculum (also philosophy and logic). Kindergarteners get world mythology, while high school students study the holy texts.

He certainly did from a contractual point of view, but it was exciting and stimulating to be allowed to consider possibilities independent of the dogma. Bravo!

I don't understand why it is ok to teach children what a religion says, but not ok to mention that there are other ways to interpret those beliefs, or to approach those beliefs with a critical mind.

Oh, I don't think he was wrong to point out that some people, himself included, don't believe in such things. However, the original quote sounded like he was trying to debunk his believing students' faith, which is also a violation of Church & State. (Or would be were it in America.) It's a fine line between presenting alternatives and pushing them.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
You have to actually get in your car or climb into an aircraft and go out and drive at 30mph, or fly at a speed in excess of 741, mph to see if it is possible to breathe at 30mph or break the sound barrier.

Sojourner; And you have to actually get down on your knees and contemplate to see if it is possible that spiritual experiences exist outside of reason and proof.

Well, that was a sudden change of tack! Your (mistaken) argument was that empirical knowledge counted as demonstrable truths, which you thought to compare technological advancements with religious beliefs. That failed and now you’ve returned to mystical explanations once more.


Quote:
Secondly, if you want to insist that it is ‘closed minded’ not to treat metaphysical systems as if they were true then that reasoning must apply to all metaphysical notions including those that contradict your own!


You have no idea what contradicts or supports my own spirituality.

Er, yes I do! Lol! It is any opposing or confirming beliefs.

Quote:
And let me ask you in what way can a person be ‘closed-minded to the possibilities of human spirit’ and ‘developing to the fullest’, when you offer no reason at all to suppose those things exist? Being closed-minded is refusing to consider evidence or listen to argument. Well, I’m more than ready to hear what you’ve got to say on the matter!


Sojourner: I've given you reason on several occasions. Until you decide to "see for yourself," you are refusing to consider the evidence or listen to the arguments I've provided.

‘Arguments’! ‘Evidence’! Lol! What arguments and what evidence have you offered? The majority of your replies to me comprise cynical one or two line rebuttals, special pleading, fallacious or mistaken reasoning or outright obfuscation. You never present a proper argument.

Quote:
I don’t for a minute doubt you believe it, but they are not truths.

Sojourner: Prove it.
::taps foot, looks at watch.::
Didn't think so.

God created the world (no contradiction). Evil and suffering exist; therefore God is not all loving and benevolent (outright contradiction). God necessarily exists (no contradiction). Jesus was the Son of God (no contradiction). Jesus rose from the dead (no contradiction).

Quote:
That’s outrageous and mistaken. Do you honestly believe that immersing a child in religion, or any dogma, somehow benefits their critical thinking, when we all know that the object of indoctrination is to influence and mould the child’s thinking so that it doesn’t criticise what it’s been taught?


Sojourner:The Anglican Communion (and I assume the worship services would be under the auspices of the C of E) does not operate that way. Anglicans are taught to question and to think critically about their faith. But then, you wouldn't honestly know that, would you! Proves my point. One can't effectively critique a system unless one knows the system.

You are wrong! It is not up for debate that Jesus might not be the Son of God or that Jesus died needlessly and was not resurrected.


Quote:
The plain fact of the matter is that children are being taught to worship a thing that has no proven existence.


Sojourner: Duh! If it had an existence provable by humanity it wouldn't be worthy of worship.

I’ll let you think that one through for a while before I give you some obvious examples to the contrary.

Quote:
Young children need to distinguish between truth and fantasy


Sojourner: You're probably one of those insufferable realists who tells little children there is no Santa Claus.

Most certainly not! It is a delightful fantasy.

Quote:
Mystical beliefs aren’t true,


Sojourner: Again, prove that.

Re-post that question after you’ve thought about and I’ll be pleased to give you a list.

Quote:
we have no right to impress those beliefs on young children without allowing the child to question the supposed truth.


Sojourner: Again, you can't critique what your don't know about.

How the hell can you say that and yet presume to teach children about something that by your own admission cannot be known! I’ll have a bet with you that I know more about Christian beliefs than you know about God?

Quote:
people have the perfect right to their beliefs and the comforts they derive from them.

Quote:
However, what I strongly object to is the manipulation of children's minds by those who see fit to impose dogmatic beliefs on them as if they were a certain truth.


Sojourner: Well, congratulations! You've effectively outlawed the propagation religion. May cynical atheists everywhere bow and scrape whenever your Name is mentioned.

People have the right to their faith, but their faith must not be imparted as if it were true???
Might I ask: In what other way can faith be imparted? Or practiced?

Read the quote properly before you respond. I’m not talking about adults; I’m referring to children. Adults can believe what they want and teach one another anything they like. I have no objection whatsoever to that.

Quote:
And as this is a debating forum I reserve the right to challenge anyone on the subject of 'truth', as it applies to religious beliefs.


Sojourner: And we reserve the right to demand proof that religious belief is not truth.

I think that is a very fair and reasonable question, and to continue in a vein of fairness and reasonableness I must agree with you. Okay I accept that there is no such thing as the Trinity and I must also concede that Jesus did not die on the cross. In short, I am unable to prove that the Islamic religion is not the truth.

 

[footprints]

Isn’t that a rather superior reply? What may I ask is this ‘secret’ knowledge that presume to instruct us on what to teach and when to learn?

It can be a rather superior reply cottage, if you want to make it a superior reply. The secret cottage is rather simple, it is called human intelligence.

It is generally considered that having self-respect enables one to have respect for others. And beliefs like arguments have no automatic, special right to be respected or protected. All beliefs stand or fall according to the weight of received opinion and any counter claims or argument.

Having self respect and being respectful are two different types of respect. Self respect is for the self (selfish, uncaring), and being respectful is for everybody else (caring and sharing). One promotes hate and anomosity, the other peace and harmony.

In this world respecting one person or one group of people, often means disrespecting another person or another group of people. A respectful person says, if you must disrespect any persons beliefs, please disrespect mine first, albeit a disrespectful person would never understand this.

I’m sorry but you appear to have a different understanding of what is meant by indoctrination. If on being told it is time for bed a child were to ask ‘Why must I go to bed so early when grown-ups go to bed so much later? most parents would explain that it is because a child’s body is still developing and it needs more sleep in order to grow into healthy adulthood. Indoctrination is an insidious term and means the teaching of something that cannot be questioned and must be accepted blindly and uncritically. The early bedtimes are good practice, and although the exact hours may be questioned, the parents are broadly correct in their insistence, not because of a blind dogma, but because there is good reason for it, which is explicable, and thoroughly proved in experience.

Indoctrination is indoctrination it works the same irrespective of the field in which it is delivered. Teach a child that God per se is a myth and full of superstitious nonsense and you would be indoctrinating them. One is just as bad as the other and teaches a child disrespect of others beliefs.

Religious belief are just a philosophy on life, every family and every individual have one, whether they know it or not. Sometimes religious philosophies conflict with a persons personal philosophies, which can create conflict, but only in people who cannot respect another persons beliefs.

Yes, some parents teach their children ridiculous things, adults of course need just as much sleep as children albeit dependent on an individuals metabolism of just how much sleep is needed. And sorry to say, what you have said is blind dogma.

 

[cottage]

Originally Posted by cottage
What is it that, in your opinion, is important to understand about religion?


Storm: How it shapes the world, from international politics to local multicultualism.

That’s reasonable. It’s sociology and history. Can’t disagree with that.

Quote:
And what do you think the role of schools should be?


Storm: At a minimum, to teach children the basic tenets of the major world faiths. NOT indoctrinate them, or force them to worship. Just: "Christians believe X. Muslims believe Y."

Ideally, I'd like to see it become part of the core curriculum (also philosophy and logic). Kindergarteners get world mythology, while high school students study the holy texts.

Just what would you have the children taught? How would you explain what Muslims believe? You could only give the briefest outline of a religion’s core beliefs, which would be fully explained in a single lesson. Go further and you’re in dangerous territory. Just consider apostasy and the explosive disagreement on that issue. Just how would you propose to introduce balance and discussion, for example by allowing students to comment on particular practises, condemning them as odious beliefs or approving them because religion is a special case? And what do Christians believe? I invite you to give an explanation that provides an absolute definition of what it means to be a Christian? Again one hour would suffice to give a broad overview. And what are ‘holy texts’? They are ‘religious texts’, unless you’re assuming the truth of what is claimed. It makes my flesh crawl to hear you speaking of teaching kindergarten children about mythology. At an age when children are absorbing knowledge but still have difficulty distinguishing between facts and fantasy you would lead them into even greater confusion and leave them none the wiser. That is appalling.

Quote:
He certainly did from a contractual point of view, but it was exciting and stimulating to be allowed to consider possibilities independent of the dogma. Bravo!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falvlun
I don't understand why it is ok to teach children what a religion says, but not ok to mention that there are other ways to interpret those beliefs, or to approach those beliefs with a critical mind.


Storm: Oh, I don't think he was wrong to point out that some people, himself included, don't believe in such things. However, the original quote sounded like he was trying to debunk his believing students' faith, which is also a violation of Church & State. (Or would be were it in America.) It's a fine line between presenting alternatives and pushing them.

Yes, you may have a point in saying it is wrong to unsettle children in their faith. But equally it is wrong to teach children religious dogma.


__________________

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
Isn’t that a rather superior reply? What may I ask is this ‘secret’ knowledge that presume to instruct us on what to teach and when to learn?



Footprint: It can be a rather superior reply cottage, if you want to make it a superior reply. The secret cottage is rather simple, it is called human intelligence.

Instead of offering yet another incredibly patronising response you really ought to explain yourself properly. Please say what you mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
It is generally considered that having self-respect enables one to have respect for others. And beliefs like arguments have no automatic, special right to be respected or protected. All beliefs stand or fall according to the weight of received opinion and any counter claims or argument.



Footprints: Having self respect and being respectful are two different types of respect. Self respect is for the self (selfish, uncaring), and being respectful is for everybody else (caring and sharing). One promotes hate and anomosity, the other peace and harmony.

That isn’t what is meant by self-respect. It does not mean selfishness, vanity or puffed-up self-esteem, never mind ‘hate and animosity’! It refers to self-discipline, self-restraint, a belief in one’s own dignity and the capacity for self-scrutiny. Without self-respect you cannot have respect for others. It is sometimes known as the first rule of politics (though seldom do the participants live up to the aspiration).
The Scot, B C Forbes said: "Without self-respect there can be no genuine success. Success won at the cost of self-respect is not success? for what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own self-respect."

Footprints: In this world respecting one person or one group of people, often means disrespecting another person or another group of people. A respectful person says, if you must disrespect any persons beliefs, please disrespect mine first, albeit a disrespectful person would never understand this.

Meaningless twaddle. Respect is simply something which is given, not given, or withdrawn depending upon the circumstances.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
I’m sorry but you appear to have a different understanding of what is meant by indoctrination. If on being told it is time for bed a child were to ask ‘Why must I go to bed so early when grown-ups go to bed so much later? most parents would explain that it is because a child’s body is still developing and it needs more sleep in order to grow into healthy adulthood. Indoctrination is an insidious term and means the teaching of something that cannot be questioned and must be accepted blindly and uncritically. The early bedtimes are good practice, and although the exact hours may be questioned, the parents are broadly correct in their insistence, not because of a blind dogma, but because there is good reason for it, which is explicable, and thoroughly proved in experience.



Footprints: Indoctrination is indoctrination it works the same irrespective of the field in which it is delivered. Teach a child that God per se is a myth and full of superstitious nonsense and you would be indoctrinating them. One is just as bad as the other and teaches a child disrespect of others beliefs.

First of all belief in God is superstitious, and while some aspects of the various religions are nonsensical the belief itself is not necessarily nonsense, and may even be true. And you can’t indoctrinate somebody into believing that a thing that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist! You can, however, indoctrinate someone into an ideology for example an extreme form of atheism or anti-theism. Secondly no religion or mystical belief is entitled to respect, just as atheism or any political affiliation is not entitled to respect. What we should respect is a person’s right to believe as they do, but even then with qualification. We don’t respect female mutilation, animal or human sacrifice, honour killings or apostasy.

Footprints: Religious belief are just a philosophy on life, every family and every individual have one, whether they know it or not. Sometimes religious philosophies conflict with a persons personal philosophies, which can create conflict, but only in people who cannot respect another persons beliefs.

There is no necessary or moral imperative to respect another person’s beliefs, some of which might be barbaric, amoral, anti-social or illogical and contradictory.

Footprints; Yes, some parents teach their children ridiculous things, adults of course need just as much sleep as children albeit dependent on an individuals metabolism of just how much sleep is needed. And sorry to say, what you have said is blind dogma.

‘Blind dogma’ is the state where no conflicting or opposing evidence is acknowledged. The young, humans and animals, need plenty of sleep, not because of ‘blind dogma’ (absurd) but because of a biological necessity. It is an empirical and scientific truth.

 

[Storm]

That’s reasonable. It’s sociology and history. Can’t disagree with that.

Thank you.

Just what would you have the children taught?

Look, I'm not an expert in comparative religion or education. So, I don't have a detailed curriculum for you. However, it's a massive subject, I'm sure they can come up with something.

Again one hour would suffice to give a broad overview.

If we want to encourage superficiality...

And what are ‘holy texts’? They are ‘religious texts’, unless you’re assuming the truth of what is claimed.

Here's an idea, you speak for you, and I'll speak for me. God, I hate it when people try to bully me into talking like them.

It makes my flesh crawl to hear you speaking of teaching kindergarten children about mythology. At an age when children are absorbing knowledge but still have difficulty distinguishing between facts and fantasy you would lead them into even greater confusion and leave them none the wiser. That is appalling.

So, no fiction for kindergarteners, then. Biographies and historical dissertations only.

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Again one hour would suffice to give a broad overview.


Storm: If we want to encourage superficiality...

A broad overview is not superficial. And remember it is a belief, and just one among many. In what way would it be beneficial for students to study a religion in depth, unless of course the object was to convert them?

Quote:
And what are ‘holy texts’? They are ‘religious texts’, unless you’re assuming the truth of what is claimed.


Strorm: Here's an idea, you speak for you, and I'll speak for me. God, I hate it when people try to bully me into talking like them.

All I’m saying is that if religions were being presented impartially it would be wrong to describe them as ‘holy’.

Quote:
It makes my flesh crawl to hear you speaking of teaching kindergarten children about mythology. At an age when children are absorbing knowledge but still have difficulty distinguishing between facts and fantasy you would lead them into even greater confusion and leave them none the wiser. That is appalling.


Storm: So, no fiction for kindergarteners, then. Biographies and historical dissertations only.

Of course not! Fiction isn’t the problem. Fables, legends and stories are okay but mythology includes folklore and religion. I just cannot see why there is this desperate wish to fill a young child’s mind with confusing mental imagery. I’m sorry but to me it borders on the sinister.
__________________

 

[cottage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cottage
In today's Sunday Telegraph a correspondent writes in response to the fact that a number of British schools are not enforcing the law that requires 'a daily act of collective worship' (which must be 'broadly Christian in character', as another correspondent aptly explained it).

'No one denies the debate between creationism and evolution, but that is no excuse for failing to provide scope for a deeper spiritual understanding, which should enrich the lives of our young people.'



Malleus de Philosophia:
I never knew such a law existed in North America or Europe. I think it's pretty bad and harmful to have children get something drilled into their heads without understanding it. If they were educated on the religion and not simply have it drilled into them, then that's fine, sort of like a theology class.

To be absolutely fair I should explain that in my own experience ‘religious instruction’ wasn’t drilled into us, not in the sense that it was by the infamous Irish Brothers for example. But it was a legal requirement none the less, presented as a truth, with no room or allowance for discussion and disagreement. And I was personally never aware of any pupil being permitted to withdraw from religious classes or from morning assembly where prayers took place.

_____________________________________________________________________________


Malleus: At the same time though, I think it's not only harmful but also downright amoral to have this because I can only assume that if religion is taught this way, then either science is taught the same way also or religion is taught to counter science and vice-verca. But I think it shouldn't be mandatory to have religion drilled into the heads of children without properly educating the kids theologically because the kids don't really understand it then, they get more or less "brain-washed". I think there should be a course in it definitely but I don't think it should be mandatory because if the children don't want it, then why should they need to learn it? I think learning some of it is useful so they aren't completely one-sided but after getting some education in both sides, they should be allowed to pursue the side they like more.

I certainly agree with some of what you say, although I don’t really understand what you mean by ‘properly educating the kids theologically’ as if religion were a self-evident truth. And I find what you describe as ‘education in both sides’ a rather puzzling statement. Wha does that mean? Isn't there only religious belief or no religious belief?
_________________________________________________________________________________

Malleus: It seems almost as though there is a constant notion going around that science and religion are incompatible, which is utter nonsense. Unfortunately, you'll be hard-pressed to properly teach the kids both if one of them is more or less "brain-washed" into the student. Overall, there's a difference between knowledge and understanding.

Yes, I agree that science and religion aren’t necessarily incompatible. But it is a mistaken notion that science can be brainwashed into people in the way that religious beliefs can be. Religion wants to insist that it is the ‘Truth’, in spite of everything. But science is just simply what it is: the results of empirical findings and observation. It therefore makes no sense to speak of brain washing people into believing what are, and can never be more than, probabilities (admittedly highly probable ones in many cases).

 

[The Neo Nerd]

ffs cottage use the quote function.

 

[sojourner]

Very obviously you can’t see it either, otherwise you’d have proper and convincing arguments, rather that just one-line retorts. The conclusion, which is a reasonable one, is that you don’t know what you claim to know.

Don't need convincing arguments, because I'm not here to convince you of anything. God reveals God's Self, not through convincing human argument, but through Divine work. The conclusion is a false one, because it assumes that your being convinced is necessary for God's existence to take place. Which is unreasonable.

How do we know that to be true?

God is Truth.

‘possibly there is no God’ makes no claims to truth,

Yes, it does. The Truth it puts forward is that there is reasonable doubt for God's existence. But we don't know that. What we do know is that there is no reasonable doubt for God's existence.

like any proposition, invites contradiction – see if you can come up with one?

There is no contradiction to invite, since God's existence is Truth, and not a proposition.

Well, I don’t know what you thought it was you were saying there but it makes no sense at all. The belief may well be based on a way of understanding the world, but that understanding is based on having faith in the supernatural. The belief is therefore superstitious.

In what way is God "supernatural?" God is, in fact, superbly natural.

Now, now, don’t be absurd! You know very well that I was saying there are no facts in superstitious beliefs, not that your believing in them isn’t a fact. I can’t imagine what you expected to achieve by such a silly ploy.

You cannot drag me into an ontological argument.

Scepticism is a very healthy thing and all children should be taught how to analyse, criticise and question everything.

Faith is also a very healthy thing and all children should be taught how to invest themselves in faith.

but they must not be taught ... that their not understanding something has merit or virtue.

Unless the search for understanding becomes an end in itself, rather than the means to an end. Sometimes "not understanding" is natural and OK.
Seems to me that Adam and Eve were punished for trying to know too much, in a manner of speaking.