Would you want to get rid of religious fundamentalism by having the government promote atheism in school and scientific truths?
Posted by petrastales@reddit | AskABrit | View on Reddit | 247 comments
Would you be willing to get rid of religious fundamentalism by having the government promote atheism in school and scientific truths?
.
Separate-Region2070@reddit
The idea of an established Church is a fading concept. The education system should focus on philosophical thought and belief systems. Religion's insistence of a Monotheisic truth which onclude crestion mythologies from prehistory eras makes it seem absurd and irrelevantto todayd modern age. When one add atrocities perpetrated in the name religion it stands out not as source goodness and truth but one of murderous evil! For Religion to survive it needs evolve it's teaching to elucidate on the nature of Human experience. At best it is seen as quaint set of customs. At worst id justifies the holocaust and chaos of war.
Alarmed-Newspaper994@reddit
I do not believe in total freedom of speech (hate speech, preaching violence etc etc) nor do I believe in freedom of religious expression. It won't happen, and I'll probably be downvoted for it, but if I could wave a magic wand I would ban religion - at the very least ban the indoctrination of children.
petrastales@reddit (OP)
So I read something you might find interesting. I’ll share the excerpt:
Contemporary opponents of religion display a marked lack of interest in the historical record of atheist regimes. In The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, the American writer Sam Harris argues that religion has been the chief source of violence and oppression in history. He recognizes that secular despots such as Stalin and Mao inflicted terror on a grand scale, but maintains that the oppression they practised had nothing to do with their ideology of ‘scientific atheism’ – what was wrong with their regimes was that they were tyrannies. But might there not be a connection between the attempt to eradicate religion and the loss of freedom? It is unlikely that Mao, who launched his assault on the people and culture of Tibet with the slogan ‘Religion is poison’, would have agreed that his atheist worldview had no bearing on his policies. It is true he was worshipped as a semi-divine figure – as Stalin was in the Soviet Union. But, in developing these cults, Communist Russia and China were not backsliding from atheism. They were demonstrating what happens when atheism becomes a political project. The invariable result is an ersatz religion that can only be maintained by tyrannical means. Something like this occurred in Nazi Germany. Dawkins dismisses any suggestion that the crimes of the Nazis could be linked with atheism. ‘What matters’ he declares in The God Delusion, ‘is not whether Hitler and Stalin were atheists, but whether atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. There is not the smallest evidence that it does.’ This is simple-minded reasoning. Always a tremendous booster of science, Hitler was much impressed by vulgarized Darwinism and by theories of eugenics that had developed from Enlightenment philosophies of materialism. He used Christian anti-Semitic demonology in his persecution of Jews, and the Churches collaborated with him to a horrifying degree. But it was the Nazi belief in race as a scientific category that opened the way to a crime without parallel in history. Hitler’s worldview was that of many semi-literate people in inter-war Europe, a hotchpotch of counterfeit science and animus towards religion. There can be no reasonable doubt that this was a type of atheism, or that it helped make Nazi crimes possible. Nowadays most atheists are avowed liberals. What they want – so they will tell you – is not an atheist regime, but a secular state in which religion has no role. They clearly believe that, in a state of this kind, religion will tend to decline. But America’s secular constitution has not ensured a secular politics. Christian fundamentalism is more powerful in the US than in any other country, while it has very little influence in Britain, which has an established Church. Contemporary critics of religion go much further than demanding disestablishment. It is clear that Dawkins wants to eliminate all traces of religion from public institutions. Awkwardly, many of the concepts he deploys –including the idea of religion itself – have been shaped by monotheism. Lying behind secular fundamentalism is a conception of history that derives from religion.
Left-Ad-3412@reddit
It wouldn't get rid of religious fundamentalism though... Not all religious fundamentalism is rooted in school education. In fact I would suggest very little of it. It is predominantly learned at home, from other religious fundamentalists or through self teaching.
Freedom of religion... Let people be
petrastales@reddit (OP)
I didn’t mean to say school causes fundamentalism. It’s families and places of worship
Slight-Brush@reddit
'Science introduced at an earlier age'
At the moment it starts at age 5. How early would you like?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study
grouchytortoise@reddit
And it’s part of ‘understanding the world’ in the early years curriculum!
SilverHelmut@reddit
"... and so, sometime in the late 20's, we began to enforce the projection of linguistic training and atheistic doctrine into the womb, for fear that we might miss a vital opportunity for preventing our youth from thinking through the big questions for themselves and conversing with others about their beliefs openly. And so we indoctrinated them with the reassurance that it was all just fiction that doesn't warrant even a passing thought.
And when we burned the books we hoped nothing of the former world would survive...
But it did, for you can never wipe away the persistence of historical truths or tenacious ideas.
And so we realised that we must snuff out the very recollection of the past and the audacity of idealogues.
And that is when we created the death camps. "
BellendicusMax@reddit
I dont think you quite grasp what teaching is...
Puzzledandhangry@reddit
I’m assuming they mean getting rid of religious schools. In the UK we have Sikh schools, Muslim schools, Christian schools etc. The Christian ones follow the government curriculum with a few hymns every now and then. Our local Sikh and Muslim schools dedicate a LOT of their education to their religion.
I would personally like to see an end to these as it promotes segregation and a lack of social inclusion. Plus, they are losing time and not learning more factual things.
But I think a variety of religious beliefs should be taught in every school. This promotes a better and healthier understanding of other people’s beliefs and differences. I’m a retired RE teacher btw.
Quick_Scheme3120@reddit
I’m an RE teacher in a Catholic school. Honestly, it isn’t like teaching in a secular school. They have revamped the curriculum because, as I’m sure you know, RE gets little respect in many schools due to the lack of academic skills you are able to develop with such surface-level knowledge. The new curriculum is challenging, relevant, and encourages high-quality written work that develops essential skills.
I don’t think dedicating time to discovering your own beliefs and identity is a waste, or is not important for young people who are told the only things that matter are English and STEM subjects. Encouraging a narrow curriculum that has no interest in who they are or what they think, in every subject, every year, is not what they need. So while I hear your points on integration, and I cannot speak for Muslim/Sikh schooling, RE is not a waste.
Kids spend too much time trying to memorise facts for a GCSE. It’s not so bad for them to learn how to justify their own opinions, understand the opinions of others, and be better equipped to deal with issues they are facing so they can navigate those situations.
little_alien2021@reddit
I taught nursery in a Catholic school and the daily 're' was just pure indoctrination, taught as fact, im Atheist and didn't actually intend to work there , but was on a placement, and I dont know when it was changed, but 8 years ago it was not changed, also no other religion teaching was allowed as not to 'confuse' them .
Quick_Scheme3120@reddit
It’s not like that any more and I agree with this criticism of the old way. It was introduced 3 years ago at secondary and I know they changed it for primary too, but couldn’t give you details. I think this type of schooling is what drove a large amount of Brits away from religion. That’s been recognised and addressed now thankfully!
little_alien2021@reddit
I can't imagine it changing much in the primary I was in most teachers were Catholic and very set in their religious ways. I cant imagine too much room for anything else. I remember going to a teacher training day at a very expensive private school (mine wasn't private) and the headteacher talking about how God was the reason, why the students did so well in the sats and attainment tables, when the school administrations would literally be able to pick the children to attend and whole administration process with interviews and references etc, and not just given the list of children from council like majority of schools, and im just like cringing in my seat. 🤷♀️
Quick_Scheme3120@reddit
Yeah I can see why you’d turn your nose up at that haha. Fortunately we are not allowed to keep the old ways; I remember my training school saying the new curriculum was much better as it was policy to remove your beliefs from delivery of the lessons, including Catholic beliefs in the sense of ‘this is the only right way.’ He hated teaching purity sex ed and that was the thing he was happiest to see go. So while I completely get that your experience could permanently sour your attitude towards it, I really don’t think it’s the same anymore even in primary. We just aren’t allowed to give any religious opinion out as fact.
little_alien2021@reddit
But if ur in that religion and the parents choose that religious school, why wouldn't they? And if the kids asks if the teacher belives it, they i assume wouldn't lie? Like one of the 'lessons' was i had to 'teach' God loved all children using a child's head of hair as an example of all his children he loved, didn't really make that much sense but kinda felt the 'indoctrinating book' was same, just 'teaching religious ideology. i just don't see how u can 'teach' that and not put belief into it. Anyways it's definitely a good thing. I find all religions same, I just experienced the Catholic way, worst time was when I had to put cross on children's forehead and kid cried and I didn't want to do it so RE lead next to me done for me 🤮
Quick_Scheme3120@reddit
Regardless of whether we are Catholic, if the kids ask what our beliefs are, we say “I’m not here to talk about my beliefs.” And stuff like ”some catholics would say…” to encourage them to develop their own Catholic/non-catholic identity. Personal opinions are an absolute no-no across the board now as it’s so easy to influence kids, they need to have criticism and analysis modelled for them. That’s far more important across the board than ‘indoctrination’ if we really care about them navigating today’s world! Sounds like your experiences haven’t been great and I’m sorry for that.
Puzzledandhangry@reddit
You misunderstood, I absolutely think RE is imperative!
Quick_Scheme3120@reddit
I know, just putting this perspective out there ;)
GnaphaliumUliginosum@reddit
Also Jewish schools exist.
Another_Random_Chap@reddit
I want kids to be taught about religion because it is a significant part of our history and seemingly our future, and it explains a lot about the shape of society and world affairs. What I don't want is our kids to be taught that they are 1) true or b) that one is more correct than the others and that terrible things will happen to them if they don't believe it. Teach them factually, and let the kids decide for themselves what they do with that information.
EUskeptik@reddit
I don’t understand “and seemingly our future”.
We’re allegedly a Christian country with over 60% ticking the ‘Christian’ box on the census. The second largest religious community is Muslim with 6% ticking that box.
However, the numbers of Christians and Muslims who worship weekly are about equal. Christianity in Britain is in steady decline. If religion is “seemingly our future” it is unlikely to be the Christian faith that will dominate.
-oo-
TooLittleGravitas@reddit
Down to 46.2% in the 2021 census.
ZygonCaptain@reddit
And about a quarter of those don’t believe in God so are they really Christian?
Ilovescarlatti@reddit
I always call myself a Christian atheist. I was christened, went to a religiously aligned public school and enjoy sacred music and art. I just don't believe any of it is true and find some of the tenets repulsive.
SilverHelmut@reddit
And yet you still associate with it...
Goes to show atheists don't have a monopoly on rationality and reason.
Ilovescarlatti@reddit
Yes it's my heritage and believers have been inspired by it to create beautiful art that I love. I'll cry at the beauty and vulnerability of Erbame Dich while not having any evidence of the existence of the god it addresses. The human emotion though is relatable.
EUskeptik@reddit
At various times in my long life (I’m 71) people close to me have strongly encouraged me to go to church for purely social reasons. To meet people. To meet the right kind of people. To make friends. To find a life partner. To participate in activities with people of my social background and class. For something to do on a weekend.
Faith and religion don’t even get mentioned. 🙄
-oo-
SilverHelmut@reddit
To each their own.
I don't know why anyone would go to the pub to find meaningful relationships and discover stimulating activities if they're teetotal...
EUskeptik@reddit
Good point. 🙂
-oo-
TooLittleGravitas@reddit
Strange question? Why would you think someone who identifies as Christian doesn't believe in God?
GreatChaosFudge@reddit
I’m a Christian atheist. I revere the figure of Jesus and regard Him not only as a moral role model, but as a source of important philosophical, political, sociological and even poetical thought.
I’ve thought carefully about the notion of an omnipotent and omnipresent deity, which is how we currently perceive ‘God’, and I consider it highly improbable. So improbable, in fact, that I feel safe to dismiss it until our understanding of the universe and/or the concept of ‘God’ changes.
Does this mean I think Jesus was not divine? Yes. Is this a problem in assessing Him as a religious figure? No, I don’t believe so.
It’s worth noting that a number of religious denominations, especially Quakers, are atheists (or at least non-theists).
r/christianatheism
(This isn’t the only possible answer to your question, I’m just bringing this belief system to your attention.)
SilverHelmut@reddit
So you routinely think people who you declare to be lunatics or liars are moral "role models" or have important things to say on all sorts of subjects - except for the sole reasons they've ever landed on your radar two thousand years after they lived?
You regard that as rational and intelligently reasonable?
Mohammed's on your radar because he founded a mass murder and genocide cult that had considerable success.
Why is Jesus on your radar?
TooLittleGravitas@reddit
Thanks for your explanation.
But doesn't this go against what Christ himself taught? He seems to have been pretty much a theist, based on what's in the bible.
No problem with people following Christ's 'philosophy' without believing in God, but it seems a bit different from being a Christian.
I guess I'll have to check out that sub you linked.
Quick_Scheme3120@reddit
Religion is not defined so strictly anymore. It’s easier to say “I follow Christian moral values, and think it best suits my upbringing to identify with the community, but I don’t believe in god because of Hawking Radiation” or whatever. A lot of it is identity rather than belief.
ZygonCaptain@reddit
How can you think someone was devine if you don’t believe in any gods?
Horror-Back6203@reddit
It's not uncommon actually, most Christians I know are only Christian because that is the religion there parents where so they were christened at birth. They don't go to church or follow the religion or even believe in god but do tick Christian on forms and such.
TooLittleGravitas@reddit
But why? It's not as if you get into any trouble these days for being atheist/ no religion. Why not be honest?
Cherrytree374@reddit
I don't think it's a case of being dishonest, they do think of themselves as Christian, but only because they don't stop to explore what they actually believe.
I have two grown up daughters. When they were younger I bought them football shirts for the team I support... But neither of them like or even watch football now, it's not their thing. But if anyone asks them who do you support, they will say that team because they remember having the kits when they were kids and going to a few matches.
They are not lying, but if they stopped to think about their answer a more honest answer would be "I don't really follow football, but when I was a kid my dad used to take me to Arsenal games".
I'm a Christian who doesn't believe in god is a bit like that, in that a more honest answer would ve "I'm not very religious, but I was christened"... But there isn't a box for that on forms.
TooLittleGravitas@reddit
Nice analogy, makes more sense to me now.
Horror-Back6203@reddit
I have no idea why they do it, I'm not religious and wasn't christened, so i have always put no religion. I was just pointing out it is quite common, I know more people who are like this then I do actual Christian who practice Christianity and believe in god.
EUskeptik@reddit
A recent survey suggested about a third of CofE priests did not believe in God.
Yes, it surprised me too!
-oo-
TooLittleGravitas@reddit
Surprises me so much I would want to see the survey. It doesn't sound credible.
EUskeptik@reddit
Are you accusing me of lying?
Had you been polite I would have provided a link.
As it is, you can go forth and multiply.
-oo-
TooLittleGravitas@reddit
Sorry. No, I wasn't accusing you of lying. Sometimes I say things too bluntly.
I also come across a lot of people who blindly quote something they gave heard on the Internet, clearly you are not one of them.
Apologies again.
EUskeptik@reddit
I’ve searched for the article I read. It wasn’t the original article but a commentary on it. I believe, but am not entirely certain, that the original article was probably this one in The Spectator. Unfortunately there’s a paywall, but you can read enough of the article for free to get the gist.
https://spectator.com/article/a-trap-for-the-right/
-oo-
EUskeptik@reddit
Thank you.
-oo-
ZygonCaptain@reddit
You don’t think it strange that some people who say they are Christian don’t believe in God?
TooLittleGravitas@reddit
I find it very strange. Hence my question.
ZygonCaptain@reddit
I don’t know anyone who thinks this way so I can only guess, but it could be because they don’t know what it means, and they just assume that’s what they are as that’s what they were told they were at school.
Another_Random_Chap@reddit
Because they were told that's what they were and they've never really questioned it, even though religion plays virtually no part in their lives.
And because people naturally like to align themselves with 'tribes'.
Dave80@reddit
Where did you get that stat from?
EUskeptik@reddit
Thank you.
-oo-
nonsequitur__@reddit
Yeah I always used to tick the Christian box cos I’d been christened so thought that’s what you did, but have never been to church other than for a christening/funeral/wedding/to watch my stepmum sing in a choir, or to look at the architecture. I wasn’t brought up with religion, other than taught about them all and to think critically. I think this is a similar experience to most Brits of my age.
SilverHelmut@reddit
How curious, since "Christening" isn't Christian... it's pre-Christian pagan, and brought into the co-option of Christianity by Roman Imperialism along with most of their distinctives.
nonsequitur__@reddit
We use christening and baptism interchangeably.
SilverHelmut@reddit
And by "we" you mean who, exactly?
Infant baptism isn't in the New Testament and neither is baptism for nominal religious status.
nonsequitur__@reddit
In England in general. We tend to say christened more than baptised.
No idea, as I’ve said I’m not religious and honestly don’t care.
Anglo-Euro-0891@reddit
And a lot of them are only ticking those boxes out of habit. Because that is how they were brought up to answer. The number of THOSE who genuinely believe in it, and actually set foot in a church regularly are a much smaller number.
Direct_Highlight_118@reddit
Religion is a part of our future because of the increasing influence of religious organisations in our political landscapes.
YragNitram1956@reddit
“Consider if you go the New Testament for instruction on how to live, you are told to give away all your possessions, make no plans for the future, reject your family if they disagree with you, and stay celibate if you can (see respectively Matthew 19.21, Matthew 6.25, Matthew 12.48, and 1 Corinthians 7). This is the outlook of people who sincerely believed that the Messiah was going to return next week or next month, anyway very soon. It is an unlivable ethic, and when after several centuries the Second Coming had still not materialised and hope of it had been deferred sine die, more was needed in the way of ethics. Where did it come from? From Greek philosophy – not least from the Stoics – and from the Roman Republican virtues of probity, honour, duty, restraint, respect, friendship and generosity that Cicero, Seneca, Virgil, Horace, and countless others wrote about and enjoined ceaselessly. ‘Christian values’ are largely Greek and Roman secular values. So Christianity is not even Christianity.”
An associated point reinforces this. The early Christians, like St Paul, were Jews. They believed that when you die, your body sleeps in the grave until the Last Trump, at which points the graves open and all the dead rise to be judged. St Paul said that the faithful will ‘see no corruption’ – that is, their bodies will not rot in the grave. But anyway at the Last Trump when all rise, the faithful will be clothed in ‘new bodies,’ resplendent and fine.
But “When Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire (which it very quickly did; it was legalised by Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313, and made the empire’s official religion by Theodosius IX in 381; within the next few decades all other religions were proscribed) and churches were being built apace, all requiring relics of the martyrs and saints, these latter were found to have rotted (‘seen corruption’) in their graves. This embarrassing problem was quickly got over by importing another useful idea from Greek philosophy: Plato’s doctrine of the immortal soul, which entered Chritianity via the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus and his followers. That is why, starting from several centuries after the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth, Christians believe in such a tianity is not Christianity but borrowed Greek philosophy.
Mr Cameron would in fact have been more right to say that ‘we are Greeks and Romans’ and meant that we are defined by the following words – and therefore concepts – of classical Greek and Latin origin: democracy, liberalism, values, history, morality, comedy, tragedy, literature, music, academy, alphabet, memory, politics, ethics, populace, geography, energy, exploration, hegemony, theory, mathematics, science, theatre, medicine, gymnasium, climate, clone, bureaucracy, dialect, analogy, psychology, method, nostalgia, organ, encyclopaedia, education, paradox, empiricism, polemic, rhetoric, dinosaur, telescope, system, school, trophy, type, fantasy, photography…take almost any word denoting political and social institutions, ideas, learning, science and technology, medicine, and culture, and it derives from the language – and therefore the ideas and the history – of ancient Greece and Rome.
Christianity attempted to suppress all this heritage, and for a time succeeded. The Emperor Justinian closed the schools of Athens – the institutions founded by Plato, Aristotle and others – in 529, because they taught ‘pagan’ philosophy (‘philosophy’ then meant everything – science, history and the rest included). There was little learning worth the name in the first seven centuries of Christianity’s dominance, because it had supressed it, leaving only the thin pickings of scripture; later it persecuted those who advanced scientific ideas in conflict with scripture: Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake, and Galileo nearly so, for not accepting that the sun goes round the earth as Psalm 104 and Joshua 10.12-13 says it does. If the list of words just given provides us with the terminology that we use to describe ourselves today, then the mighty endeavour of Christianity to obliterate all those words and what they mean makes us anything but a Christian nation.
We who had protest against the description of us as a ‘Christian nation’ had in mind the fact that we are a highly pluralistic nation, with many faiths and none, and that the ‘nones’ are net contributors to our society and culture in major ways that does not deserve having the fact of their principled rejection of religious belief overlooked.
But the remarks above should be further evidence that the description of us as a ‘Christian nation’ is deeply misleading if taken to imply that we are a nation of believers in Christian doctrines and legends.
Another_Random_Chap@reddit
A good proportion of that 60% tick Christian because they were told that they're Christian, but the reality is they're Christian in little more than name only. The current administration is full of 'Christians', one even wrote a book recently about his religious journey, yet here they are doing so many unchristian things, and even criticising The Pope of all people because he dared to call out their unchristian actions. They use the bible teaching incredibly selectively to suit their agenda.
In the UK the radical right are now all claiming to be Christian and wrapping themselves in the Christian flag, yet the majority have never darkened the door of a church in their lives, unless it was to beat up an immigrant on the church doorstep!
Norman_debris@reddit
But you could go slightly further and not only teach that religions aren't true but also explicitly state that we have absolutely no reliable evidence for any superstitious claims, including the existence of deities, and therefore these beliefs aren't simply not true, but are demonstrably false.
EnquirerBill@reddit
The life, death and resurrection of Jesus
Norman_debris@reddit
What about it?
Xenozip3371Alpha@reddit
I'm an Atheist myself, but, well.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Norman_debris@reddit
Indeed. But it depends on the claim claim.
In the context of whether there is a god, we should teach arguments such as Russell's teapot, showing that the burden of proof lies with the person making unfalsifiable claims.
For other claims, such as the reality of biblical events, like curing blindness or walking on water, the problem isn't a lack of evidence. We know these things are impossible.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Logic loop.
A strict rationalist believes nothing irrational takes place and that therefore irrational things are impossible.
That's not a proven certainty.
What you should teach, rather than self-serving logic loops, is that life will never be made up of perfect informational. debates and intellectual games where the only things that have any bearing on you must be on someone else to convince you of their veracity.
Reality very much places the ball in the court of the hearer to consider what they don't understand and what may not ve perfectly obvious, because ignorance and obtuseness are never a superior intellectual position.
"Someone must persuade me that God is real with satisfying proof before I reconsider my life in the light of that possibility" is actually by nature wilful ignorance. Given the stakes the most reasonable position would ve to want assurance that there's nothing to worry about, and on that score you've got a lot of work to do discrediting the claims.
"Someone needs to prove that Jesus needs to be on my radar two thousand years after he lived" is a much dumber question than "I need to find out why Jesus is on my radar two thousand years after he lived".
There's no academic premise in the world recognises the intellectual authority if standing there in abject ignorance with your thumb up your butt demanding people teach you important things. Reality is utterly indifferent to your relationship with truth. It will let you believe a rattlesnake is of no threat of consequence to you all day long until truth catches up with you...
Even the New Testament carries the phrase "I would not have you ignorant..."
The information you reject from people who fail to convince you will never, ever be on them for their failure to convince you... it will always be on you for how easily you dismissed based on your prejudices.
A believer in anything always has the advantage over a believer in nothing - the advantage of a more open mind.
SilverHelmut@reddit
"absolutely no reliable evidence" to satisfy YOU.
Saying something isn't reliable because you don't want to ackbowledge it isn't the same as showing it as being unreliable and by extension choosing to reject evidences and arguments for theism doesn't make them untrue and thus makes even less 'demonstrably false.'
You've got some logic distortion going on there.
Puzzledandhangry@reddit
As a retired RE teacher I agree! You need to show children the variety of beliefs that people have and their differences and similarities. It fosters empathy.
nonsequitur__@reddit
Which is what happens currently, on the whole.
RaedwaldRex@reddit
Exactly. Teach about religions, respecting people's beliefs and whatnot. But look at them critically. Don't teach about religion as though its true. It's what SOME people believe, not everyone
petrastales@reddit (OP)
Yes that’s what I’m saying. Learn about religion but from a perspective of curiosity whilst also developing the skills to examine them critically
throwaway-awawa@reddit
there's nothing to "promote" for atheism. atheism is just factual information.
bluejackmovedagain@reddit
Which "scientific truths" do you think are missing from the national science curriculum?
petrastales@reddit (OP)
They aren’t missing, but they’re taught at a later stage. Children can learn about the big bang theory at 7 and study religions and their mistruths then too
NaniFarRoad@reddit
Here's a fact - the big bang theory was proposed by a priest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre). So being religious doesn't stop great minds from lateral thinking, and developing new models of how the material world functions.
The big bang theory isn't a "fact", it's our current best working theory - for all we know there's a better mechanism that explains how the universe came to be (for all we know we already have a better model, but it requires understanding at a level higher than I ever achieved in physics). We just don't currently have either (a) the evidence, or (b) the understanding to explain data that doesn't fit the current best model.
Science should not be taught as "facts" - it makes terrible scientists. Science is exploratory - should always be open to lateral thinking and questioning why the data doesn't fit the model. Unfortunately, small children tend to be terrible at this - they take so many things literally. So it's generally not appropriate to introduce physics (and all the maths that go with it) to 5-year olds.
Source: I teach science and maths.
TooHot1639@reddit
"Science should not be taught as "facts" - it makes terrible scientists. "
Utter rubbish.
99.99% of "science" is beyond dispute - certainly EVERYTHING that's taught at school level is.
Quick_Scheme3120@reddit
I believe Bertrand Rousseau collaborated with another mathematician. They wrote 3 volumes of huge books, had to invent their own language and models, simply to demonstrate that ‘1+1=2’ is a fundamental fact that is sourced in the universe, and not just a construct of human understanding. And they still didn’t really get to the bottom of it.
All that is to say, science is what we have observed to be true. If we said that we cannot prove science wrong, or that science should not be verified beyond the accepted result, then that would not be science in and of itself. You would get people who are close-minded and not curious, and a world where we don’t move past the basics.
All that is very arty farty language to basically say, don’t overestimate human understanding.
TooHot1639@reddit
That's total invented bollocks. Aside from teh fact that Mathematics is NOT Science.
2 is literally human-defined as the sum of 1 and 1. We could have called "2", "3" or "k", or "\~" and had a different number system that would have been just as valid as our current one. It would simply have had different symbols.
Quick_Scheme3120@reddit
It’s an intuitive concept to us, if I have an apple I can demonstrate there’s only one. The point of the exercise was to officially prove that as fundamental fact and by all accounts it was difficult! I think I was mistaken with ‘Rousseau’, I think it’s actually ‘Russel’.
I wasn’t trying to get into a debate about that anyway. My point is that as much as you want to say it’s 100% the case because of x experiment, ultimately scientists acknowledge they are theories that you can demonstrate through experiments, but not 100% fact. If you say this, you deny the possibility to adapt and deepen our understanding.
TooHot1639@reddit
You're talking such nonsense.
It has nothing to do with "intuition" which is itself nonsense.
It has nothing to do with logic either because we literally DEFINE the term.
It's like saying that my name is "Robert" therefore it's intuitive that my name is "Robert". Nope - that's just what I've chosen to call myself - it's a fact sure, it's not based on Science, reason or a funny feeling in one's stomach.
You also misunderstand how the scientific method relates to my prior claim about most science being beyond dispute. Most science has been proven by literally hundreds of reproducible experiments. There are areas where we are still working stuff out and these areas get a disproportionate amount of attention.
The other misplaced argument is about accuracy of models. Sure we don't have a complete picture of how the entire universe works either at a macro or micro level - that doesn't make ANYTHING we do know wrong - it just means at some point we'll know a little bit more depth. It's a bit like claiming that the a precision engineered 1m rod isn't 1m because we don't have the tools to machine it to more than 0.00000001mm accuracy. Unless you are working on something that requires that level of precision, it's dumb to pretend it isn't 1m long especially when the technical specs will state the tolerance.
And that's exactly how school education works - nobody claims to present children with a 100% picture of how the universe works - I mean even if we had nailed it all, it would be impossible for them to comprehend anyway. But nothing that is taught is open to challenge and that's been the case for a very long time now.
Quick_Scheme3120@reddit
I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying. What I said was merely an interesting point of discussion that speaks to how science should be/is approached by scientists themselves.
TooHot1639@reddit
I agree to a degree with that.
Indeed I think that as far as it's useful to, science already acts in that way. The trouble is the water is muddied by:
1) Bad science, that generally gets little notice taken of it by other scientists, but is increasingly being used by certain groups/businesses/politicians as a source of misinformation. There's a misconception among the general public that "peer-reviewed" means something is valid. Nope - peer-reviewed simply means that there are no obvious flaws in the work. Plenty of stuff gets published in peer-reviewed journals that is wrong and those working in the field can quickly figure this out - but again here we're talking about the cutting edge of science.
NaniFarRoad@reddit
Did you get taught about the taste zones on your tongue as a kid? What model of the atom did you learn? How many types of diabetes are there? How do magnets work?
School curricula are full of old rubbish that should not be taught as fact on any level. They're a good starting point and should always be taught as "current best understanding" or (more commonly) "simplest starting model".
TooHot1639@reddit
1) Nope
2) The model "taught" in schools is clearly a simplified construct. Like probably everything you know about science it is dumbed down to enable comprehension. That does not make it "wrong". It makes it incomplete.
3) Funny you should ask this because nobody is taught how magnets work at school, simply what the consequences are. Indeed I noted this at age 11 and asked. I then got a 3 minute explanation of sub-atomic physics that was clearly not relevant to anything we were being taught at the time but was pretty interesting.
4) You're confusing "non-facts" with "approximations". Something can quite easily be both as long as it is understood it is limited.
Otherwise_Ad6301@reddit
Indeed. Science has theories and then tries to disprove them. It doesn't really do "truths" in the fact sense. God is not disproved by Science. But the idea of a all power being that created the universe is considered an extremely low probability.
SilverHelmut@reddit
And how many - exactly - consider it an extremely low probability?
Otherwise_Ad6301@reddit
By scientists? The vast majority. Nobody can be "exact" though.
SilverHelmut@reddit
You have any evidence you speak for the "vast majority" of scientists and any proof those scientists have been universally right about everything?
Do any of these "vast majority" of scientists have their names on an atheist register for you to speak so firmly on their behalf?
Have many of them proven their belief?
Or you were just hoping to get away with an appeal to authority?
Otherwise_Ad6301@reddit
I do t state that i speak for the majority of scientists. However scientists by definition dont believe unquestioningly. The fact you use phrases such as "proving their belief", when belief has nothing to do with it, shows where you stand. I have no issue with religious folk. But please try to open your mind to evidence - or lack thereof of - and not belief.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Utter bollocks.
Scientists are the easiest to convince with dogma as long as you tell them it's 'science.'
First, they don't all test and discover science from scratch for themselves.
Second, MOST scientists don't work in a field that even comes close to needing a theory of origins, big bangs, particles to people evolution...
Most "scientists" work in the brass tacks of how things actually work, cause and effect, which means that most acience lives entirely in a harmonious co-existence with theism and with religiosity.
The number of medical scientists, for example, who readily accept theism and see themselves as technically participating in the mending of creatively designed life forms is exceedingly high.
There's all sorts that "most scientists" accept every day on faith and belief alone. They are not innately transcendent and go around the place skeptically examining everything under a microscope.
My mind is considerably more open than yours...
Closed-mindedness is the strict rationalist's disease, sunshine.
Otherwise_Ad6301@reddit
Yes ok Pal 😄
Otherwise_Ad6301@reddit
To clarify i dont think atheism should be taught in the same way I dont thknk religion should be taught as a truth. I think kids should be taught about science, nature, civilisation, to think critically, and to be prepared to challenge anything that is labelled a truth
SilverHelmut@reddit
Something of an irony that the hallmark of science rationalism is still considered to be the belief that something exploded out of nothing.
NaniFarRoad@reddit
No, it's not a "belief", its an "understanding". The big bang model makes predictions - e.g. the universe is expanding from a single point -, and these predictions are supported by evidence. Science doesn't have much to say about what happened before the big bang, assuming "before" is even a thing in that context. So, until we have more evidence to the contrary, the big bang model remains our working theory of how the universe formed.
The patterns of red shift (further objects are moving away faster than nearer objects), and cosmic microwave background radiation (every part of the universe is cooling down at the same rate*), are the two bits of evidence taught as being in support of this model.
You shouldn't need to invest belief in any science. The theories we currently use - big bang, evolution, cohesion-tension, and so on - they are just what is in our toolbox of understanding at the moment. Its terribly boring, but scientists would never use the word "proof" to describe any bit of new evidence. Disprove or rejected? Absolutely. But "scientists have proven" is a statement used to sell newspapers.
SilverHelmut@reddit
You're going to great semantic contortions to make a belief sound less like a belief in order to make it seem more sound.
Conflating the observation of ripples on the surface of water with a belief that something randomly exploded without cause from the water and spontaneously formed all life and all order from the chaos doesn't go far to persuade me you haven't simply invented a narrative to avoid acknowledging that a being you have no explanation for didn't slap its testicles on the water...
That's literally the nature of a problem in which you can't define what came before and you can't exemplify what came after, but you definitely know what you don't want it to be and will accept an abundance of imagination to connect those dots.
It's presumption and therefore nothing but belief, however you dress up how logical and authoritative you want it to be.
The rest is semantics and rhetoric.
Big bang is popular. But far from settled.
NaniFarRoad@reddit
Very little if any science is "settled" - its not in the nature of science to be dogmatic (not that it has stopped many scientists acting as if it is!).
Wasps_are_bastards@reddit
I think genetics were first discovered by a monk too
No-Jicama-6523@reddit
Gregor Mendel
Wasps_are_bastards@reddit
Yep, I’m sure he was a monk.
petrastales@reddit (OP)
Thank you for the explanation!
Snoo_65717@reddit
Just don’t waste kids education on bible and singing songs about Jesus. If you want them to be stupid teach them religion on your time.
SilverHelmut@reddit
That would sound so much less childish and stroppy if you could actually disprove the Bible and discredit Jesus instead of just tantrumming your contempt and trying to pretend you have a superior position...
Snoo_65717@reddit
Keep your fairytale bs out of kids education.
SilverHelmut@reddit
When you can disprove it, we'll talk.
Until then, keep your deranged ignorance out of kids education.
Snoo_65717@reddit
Disprove? It’s never been proven, it’s mumbo jumbo for the feeble minded.
SilverHelmut@reddit
It's historically documented.
It never needed to be "proven." It needed to be evidentially supported. Which it is, by its historicity.
There's a bit of a problem when your laughing off of primitive superstitions has to begin with why your inability to disprove them is a conscious decision rooted in the contempt you have for the subject matter...
You're supposed to be the more authoritative, rationalist position which kind of puts something of a ball in your court for discrediting the veracity of historically established claims...
You're trying to hit the subject in a laboratory or debate framework, which simply doesn't apply to recorded historicity.
History doesn't need to be proven in a debate or a lab for it to be true and meaningful.
Snoo_65717@reddit
I have more important things on my mind than your dog shit religion.
SilverHelmut@reddit
You absolutely don't.
Snoo_65717@reddit
The Christian fascists in America are planning to destroy the cradle of civilisation today so yeah, I do.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Islamofascism is not the cradle of civilisation.
And quite how backing "Islamofascism" against "Christian fascism" is a lesser evil is beyond me...
Snoo_65717@reddit
Everything is beyond you, hence the religion 😂
SilverHelmut@reddit
I'm not the denialist, though. You are.
Snoo_65717@reddit
The burden of proof is with the one say magic sky daddy is real
SilverHelmut@reddit
No it isn't.
Magic sky daddy belief is foundationally historical. Oldest organising principle in the species.
It shouldn't be this hard for you to disprove historical common knowledge, sunshine.
No_Effective_4481@reddit
I would rather they taught critical thinking, science and religious education so kids can be informed and make their own decisions.
Acrobatic-Set9585@reddit
I mean science and RE are both taught from an early age so idk what you mean. School doesn't push religion or atheism down kids' throats, why does that need changing?
Paulstan67@reddit
Unfortunately religious indoctrination starts at home and at an early age, trying to eradicate religious fundamentalism is like trying to hold back the tide.
Even if religion was made illegal with instant death penalty for people practicing you couldn't stop it.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Certainly hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried, and on the contrary has never proved that it didn't just result in making more people terminally ignorant and wasn't sending more people to their great beyond and steeping the gleeful in the wrath of a deity they convinced themselves by cultic repetitive indoctrination was not real.
Even worse... it makes a pastime out of resisting something utterly inconsequential by behaving worse than the people you don't philosophically agree with.
Can you imagine the kind of sociopathic ignorance it would take to have pride in the violence you dealt to some hippie Jesus freaks in the name of humanity's blissful rejection of their views?
Not to mention the hypocrisy - as Dawkins argues - of your utter silence on Islamism while hiding behind the false belief that using Christianity as a proxy for all religions being equal and equally despicable is the apt substitute.
You have the intellectual and historical capacity to critique and demolish Islam right here and right now...
But instead you waste time conflating your intolerance of theism with some fantasy of having somehow disproven and discredited Judeo-Christianity...
Bizarre.
You could substantially challenge the faith of the most psychopathic of the cults with a following of 2bn but instead cockwomble around some indignant contempt for Christianity as if its the same thing...
Futilistic thinking.
Paulstan67@reddit
I don't challenge anyone's faith, what I challenge is their intolerance of others, their forced compliance by non followers.
Even here in the UK, a secular country, we still have laws brought in by Christians that non Christians have to follow, yes they are now few and far between but they are still there.
Many other countries also have religious laws including the the islamic countries.
SilverHelmut@reddit
What laws do you have in the UK that were 'brought in by Christians' that non-Christians have to follow?
Paulstan67@reddit
We have Sunday trading laws, where shops and businesses aren't allowed to be open.
The same on Christmas day and over Easter.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Sorry...
You said 'brought in by Christians...'
I didn't think you were referring to something so old that it is culturally foundational and precedes the modern concept of 'shops and businesses' being open at all in an organised sense.
OK... yes... damn those ancient religious traditions on which society was founded.
Ban Christmas and Easter... ban high days... ban everything that not everyone universally agrees with...
True historical and cultural revisionism.
I love it...
Pointless but bold.
Paulstan67@reddit
Oh I don't want them banned, I just want the freedom to conduct my business despite the event still going on.
That's the religious intolerance that I can't stand. I, as an atheist can't do some things because of Christians.
Other religions in other countries impose similar restrictions . (Think of the availability of pork products or alcohol in some countries)
Religious freedom is great, but we should also have the freedom from religion (and it's customs) if we so desire.
Here it's getting better, it's not that long ago that shops weren't allowed to open on any Sunday, pubs and bars had restricted hours on Sundays and even harsher restrictions at Easter/Christmas. Guess what the easing of these laws didn't lead to the collapse of society, all it did was give people the choice.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Never been a problem to me. Not ever found a business or service I needed that was affected by Sunday Trading Laws and on the contrary, found other countries much more restrictive.
Calling it "religious intolerance" seems waaaaaay fricking over the top.
Rest assured we can gladly secularise a labour protection law to interfere with your world... No problem.
And... no, it didn't lead to the collapse of society and was never claimed that it would... It has led to the enshittification of many aspects of life though.
Being able to get alcoholically slaughtered seven days a week isn't exactly the societal zenith. Strongly leveraging staff to have to work isn't. The greed inherent in insisting that the culture must be a seven day a week commercial exploit isn't.
There must be a paradise out there somewhere for you...
idontlikemondays321@reddit
I think it should be taught in the same regard as Aesop’s fables and children be given the opportunity to question all religions. Religion should never be taught as a fact at home or school because it simply isn’t a fact. It’s a lifestyle choice.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Ridiculous claim.
Just because you don't believe something doesn't deprecate it to trivial worthlessness.
Why should YOU, for example, force anyone to reduce Biblical Christianity, for example, to the triviality of what are mere stories, solely because you believe but cannot prove that they are the same glib thing.
That's ridiculous. Literally.
No one died in large numbers professing that the events depicted in Aesop's fables are historical truth...
Look at the ignorance you'd wilfully bend the world to in order to justify your own lazy thinking...
idontlikemondays321@reddit
I’m just being realistic. If somebody today said they saw a talking snake, a flying donkey like creature or a four armed elephant, would we take their word or would we require more proof? Would the major religions today exist if there was no coercion or threat of hell? Children shouldn’t be told something is fact if there is no compelling evidence that points towards it being true. An adult can weigh up the information and make an informed choice. Children are impressionable and need to be given the chance to think for themselves
SilverHelmut@reddit
To be fair...
If there is a threat of 'hell', then religions will still organise around it. You saying it isn't a real threat has nothing over their claim that it is.
Telling them there is no such threat and therefore they don't need to consider it is infinitely more dangerous - if you prove to be wrong - than telling them that there may be reasons to believe there could be a threat and giving them options to consider how to inform and mitigate on the subject.
I'm not quite sure why you think narratives about their personal morality are a problem for children.
Quick_Scheme3120@reddit
That is what is currently taught. Students are encouraged to question, research, and justify their own opinions and find out how religions do that too. The world they are growing up in is even alien to mine at 25, and RE also helps them tackle that. The big things right now are Deepfakes, doxxing, mental health, and cognitive stimulation. No subject at high school covers that except RE/PD. It’s far less focused on theology, instead addressing ‘how to deal with the world and discover who you are.’
Having taught in a variety of schools, I know the kids care about these discussions and benefit greatly from them.
EnquirerBill@reddit
Christians developed Science
snajk138@reddit
They really don't need to promote atheism, just teach what the different religions say, how their rules do not work today, what it was built on and who wrote the "holy" books.
Atheism is what everyone is until they're indoctrinated with some religion, just teach the facts unbiased and most would go back to atheism.
SilverHelmut@reddit
False.
Agnostic is what everyone is by default.
Agnosticism is passive.
Atheism is an active total rejection of a foundationally established concept.
You don't have to have been 'indoctrinated with some religion' to understand that humanity has always believed in the existence of gods.
snajk138@reddit
I disagree. Atheism is about not believing in any gods, agnosticism is about there not being enough proof that there is any gods. Babies do not validate the proof or lack thereof of any gods, and so they are atheist.
Maybe not, but you need to be indoctrinated to believe in any specific god or religion, unless you make up your own. That people have had beliefs historically and the acknowledgement of that have no bearing on this.
SilverHelmut@reddit
No, babies are not 'atheist.'
They're ignorant.
Agnostic. Literally without knowledge.
Literally "I don't know if there is or isn't."
Atheism is, literally, "I will not acknowledge the possibility and have absolutely no interest in considering it."
It's possible to be a passive agnostic.
It's not possible to be a passive atheist because the very awareness that 'theism' is a thing precludes the atheist from having a passive ignorance. They're aware and they've rejected.
snajk138@reddit
That's where you're wrong. Atheism means someone who doesn't believe in any god, that's it. Agnosticism is "I have heard the (so called) evidence and am not convinced there is a god, but there might be".
Incantanto@reddit
I would very much like the required christianity to fuck off as the first step.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Rest assured, paranoid one... Christianity is not required of you.
Incantanto@reddit
First Fuck off with that patronising bullshit
Second: the law requires in primary schools "a daily act of collective worship that is broadly christian in nature". Whether schools do it or not is debated but I spent all of my Junior school having to sing christian hymns every assembly, being taken to church at easter, and havung regular visits from the happy clappy christians who'd sing bad workship songs at you.
So that requirement I would rather like removed
Ok_Grocery_5328@reddit
Just keep it completely out of school full stop.
Mas-Vri@reddit
The only damaging religious fundamentalism in the UK is from Muslims and there’s precisely zero chance of the government allowing atheism to be pushed on Muslims
ResolveNormal5491@reddit
I beg to differ. There are more than just the Muslim extremists here in the UK. There's Scientology, for one. Christianity (particularly Catholicism) isn't exactly known for its peace and love either.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Neither Scientology nor Christianity has a foundational global conquest mandate bor were founded by degenerate murderous psychotic psychopaths...
This seems like some pretty obtuse whataboutery right here...
ResolveNormal5491@reddit
Not entirely.
While Christianity doesn't CURRENTLY have a global conquest mandate, there was such a thing as the Crusades, which sought to wipe Earth of anyone non-Christian, which included LGBT people and even non-Catholics (Protestants)
Scientology, while no known domination goals are known, they were founded on the delusions of a degenerate psychopath (L. Ron Hubbard) who is well documented for his abusive treatment of his followers, who have carried on his abusive practices after his death.
Even though I am not as well versed in modern Islamic teachings and practices, I do know that the majority of violent Muslims are extremists anyway, which, yes, does include many non-terrorist Muslims as well. However, I would say that the general distemperment would be due to phobia, bigotry, and persecution, as well as taking the teachings out of context. This happens in Christianity, too.
So, I don't I don't agree with your generalisations, and hope you can learn something here.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Nope.
Christianity has no foundational global conquest component.
I don't care what Roman Imperialism co-opted to extend the viable life of Roman Imperialism.
It's inauthentic.
It is not Christianity and Christianity is not Roman Imperialism.
Second... Catholicism did not "seek to wipe any non-Christian off the earth" anytime ever. Nor did the Crusades attempt to do so. They were strategic conflicts over geopolitics, over two centuries delayed in response to the psychopathic Islamic Empire.
There were no "LGBT" people being 'wiped off the face of earth' 1500 years ago. It's a modern grouping.
This is bullshit historical revisionism.
What Lafayette Ronald Hubbard did to his cultic followers is between them and him.
This has no place in the conversation.
And I don't give a damn what the "most Muslims" that neither you nor I can speak for do or don't do. Their ideology is foundationally psychopathic.
I've no intention of greenlighting that psychopathy based on a relativist assessment of whether its disciples believe in it to the point of action or just moral support.
People who disassociate with a psychopathic ideology distinguish themselves from it.
811545b2-4ff7-4041@reddit
Both my kids are atheists, but go to a Jewish school.
I want my kids to have good critical thinking skills. To learn science. To learn other cultures and religions.
Religion isn't the inherent problem. It's a culture of fundamentalism - be it conspiracy, politics or religion, that exists and needs to be solved.
Promoting critical thinking is the way. Atheism is an outcome of better critical thinking.
According_Ocelot4319@reddit
Pretty sure that science is already introduced when you begin school. The critical examination of religions point is interesting though. From what I remember of RE and 'Philosophy and Ethics' in school was that critical examinations of ethics were promoted but this wasn't the case for religion. It's a difficult line to walk perhaps because a critical examination could only be constructive if it points out the real-world consequences of religious extremism without dismissing the belief that many people follow. However, if done properly then I believe it will allow critical theory from an earlier age and towards a larger range of topics, subjects.
putajinthatwjord@reddit
No, the opposite.
Religious fundamentalism is people of a certain religion saying "This is the truth and all other views are wrong".
Teaching that atheism is the truth and all other views are wrong is just the same thing, albeit with different beliefs.
Teaching that many people all over the world believe many different things and there is no absolute truth gives people a better chance of making their own mind up.
And science is built on a core belief that we can't know everything, all we can do is hypothesise and test, then come up with a working theory that explains experimental results as best as possible.
So there isn't really any scientific truth, just theories that accurately predict the outcome of events in certain circumstances, and I believe that is already taught as part of the scientific method.
petrastales@reddit (OP)
Religious indoctrination in childhood predicts religiosity in adulthood …it’s too late by then for those indoctrinated at a young age and teaching that many people hold different beliefs only seems to work on those in secular groups
TaffWaffler@reddit
Do you think uk schools promote religious indoctrination?
Anglo-Euro-0891@reddit
The English ones I went to in the 1970s and 1980s certainly had a go at it. COMPULSORY Christian hymns and readings EVERY morning in assembly. COMPULSORY prayer before being allowed to eat lunch. COMPULSORY R.E lessons, heavily dominated by Christianity. Absolutely NO way of opting out.
It was at the time even enshrined in law. In fact, the requirement to have regular religious meetings is STILL there.
The "School Standards And Framework Act" 1998 has clauses (particularly Section 70) specifying the requirement for collective daily worship of "a broadly Christian character".
This was merely the latest of similar clauses put into earlier acts:
Education Act 1996, Section 346. Education Reform Act 1998. Education Act 2944, Section 25.
The wider teaching of religion(s), as in an R.E lessons type context, is a completely separate matter again.
So the compulsory state indoctrination is DEFINITELY still a thing.
petrastales@reddit (OP)
Absolutely not. Parents do at home/in places of worship and I want children to know how to contest nonsense shoved down their throats
SilverHelmut@reddit
You should begin with actually discrediting and disproving the religions... Not trying to force zero theism by making claims about theism that you can't prove...
TaffWaffler@reddit
So you want to shove something else down their throat? The uk is increasingly atheist. This seems like a non-issue
petrastales@reddit (OP)
Not worried about the atheists or merely ‘culturally religious’. I’m concerned with religious fundamentalism and I think that a way to counteract it is through the power of scientific inquiry and philosophical approaches to critically examining religions. I shouldn’t have said atheism tbh.
TaffWaffler@reddit
Science is taught within the first year of school. How much sooner do you want it taught? And again, religious belief is dipping in this country. You’re upset over nothing
TooHot1639@reddit
Bullshit.
Religion is lies.
Atheism is simply the absence of lies.
BuncleCar@reddit
I think some religions would not like 'there is no absolute truth'
Tiny-Spray-1820@reddit
Would be hard given the UK has an official state religion
SilverHelmut@reddit
You say that but........
Where is that religion being forced on anyone?
ValidGarry@reddit
Given the separation of church and state, and the declining attendance of church, it's happening
TooHot1639@reddit
Indoctrinating children into a religion should face the same penalty as sexual exploitation of kids.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Don't be ridiculous.
Zorolord@reddit
Absolutely 💯 religions causes nothing but bother, when people discover the truth they'd hopefully be less inclined to kill or waste their lives especially over a false deity!
SilverHelmut@reddit
Explain the industrial genocide of theists by atheists on the planet.
EvilRobotSteve@reddit
I would rather no religions be part of the school curriculum. That includes "promoting" atheism.
I went to a very Christian school, it was literally attached to a church, and it did very much feel like indoctrination. Luckily for me, it seemed to provoke the opposite response in my brain, and it made me very much against organised religion.
But I find militant atheists aren't really much different to religious zealots. I'd rather see the whole lot of it removed from education. Let families bring their kids up with whatever religion they feel is right, or even better, let the kids make up their own minds what to believe when they're old enough. If they're interested, it's not exactly hard to find religious texts to study.
petrastales@reddit (OP)
Religious indoctrination in childhood predicts religiosity in adulthood. Most indigenous Brits aren’t indoctrinating their children in Christianity anymore. However that’s not the case for people of other backgrounds.
I didn’t really intend to say promote atheism in school but rather I want science introduced at an earlier age as well as the critical examination of religions that exist. Harari’s Sapiens was great for this
Shoddy-Reply-7217@reddit
There's a fair whiff of racism between the lines here.
Why don't you say what you're actually thinking, rather than being vague about non-specific 'religious fundamentalism'.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Ideology isn't race, though..........
Why would you think it is?
Slight-Brush@reddit
'Science introduced at an earlier age'
At the moment it starts at age 5. How early would you like?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study#full-publication-update-history
EvilRobotSteve@reddit
I’m all for teaching science, but I wouldn’t trust a teacher to critique religion without filtering it through their own personal bias. IMO the healthiest approach is complete separation of religion and education.
A person’s belief (or lack thereof) is a personal thing that is so incredibly subjective that any attempt to educate either the positives or the negatives will largely be based on subjective opinion rather than objective fact. I’d rather kids were taught objective facts and left to make their own minds up about anything else.
ValidGarry@reddit
I'm not sure you understand what you're asking about. When I was in school we studied science. In Religious Education classes we learned about a wide number of faiths including Christianity. What religious fundamentalism do you want to get rid of?
petrastales@reddit (OP)
That imparted in people’s private lives. They may challenge it if certain aspects of science are taught at an earlier age and if they are taught how to question sources
SilverHelmut@reddit
If you can't reasonably and convincingly explain how the concept of God arrived in human thinking, you'd be comedy gold trying to assure everyone it won't happen again and keep turning up over and over.
How many of the wrongthinkers are you prepared to exterminate to keep running from the futility of your own position?
ValidGarry@reddit
Given the UK is predominantly secular and religious affiliation has been declining for decades, what are you basing your concerns on?
FlakyAssociation4986@reddit
i dont think you could understand a lot of human history or society if yiu didnt have a basic understanding of religion and its influence
SilverHelmut@reddit
Well... what you'd have is an idiot's presumption that...
and ultimately
Which is about the most idiotic interpretation of theism imaginable and the reason I proudly reject the ideologically easy answers of atheists and happenstantialists and their magical explosions of something from nothing, and order from chaos, and knowledge from absense of knowledge, and ascents of man, and all sorts of incredible ignorant forms of the death of critical thinking.
smellyfeet25@reddit
Religion should not be taught as truth . just what some people believe and yes scientific facts should be taught as the only facts
SmashedWorm64@reddit
Teaching science as “fact” is not correct. It should be taught as truth.
Imagine if people just took for granted what made up an atom. No one would bother to question it.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Science should also be limited to what it can observe - not imagineer or presume or draw little dotted lines of speculation between...
To elevate it above religious ideations.
St3lla_0nR3dd1t@reddit
Science is by definition not truth, the whole point is to get better interpretations of our ability to perceive the world around the scientist and then communicate that finding as accurately as possible. You only have to look at the number of times science improved our knowledge of the Covid 19 virus during the pandemic to realise this.
St3lla_0nR3dd1t@reddit
Clearly there are facts that are not scientific facts. How do you scientifically prove that I wrote this post?
Onyx1509@reddit
Do people spouting "only teach scientific facts!" nonsense realise that this would mean completely obliterating the arts and humanities curriculum?
Leading_Study_876@reddit
Some would say that there is no such thing as a "fact".
And no way that any scientific theory can ever be "proven".
Karl Popper, a famous philosopher of science, in fact stated that to be called "scientific" a theory has to be testable. Or falsifiable. i.e. it must be at least theoretically possible to prove it wrong
He used psychoanalysis and Marxism as examples of systems that claimed to be scientific, but were not, as they could not be falsified by testing.
Some would say that modern string theory falls into the same camp.
nonsequitur__@reddit
At school you’re taught science, and RE is usually about all faiths. What is it you think isn’t being taught?
GnaphaliumUliginosum@reddit
It would be very useful for people to learn how to identify high-control groups and how to challenge them and extricate themselves if needed. This includes non-religious cults as well as high-control religious groups.
But this will sadly be impossible as groups such as JWs and Mormons will throw vast amounts of money at court cases to block it, and even the CoE probably doesn't want us to look too closely at some of their more extreme congregations.
SilverHelmut@reddit
Elaborate "more extreme CofE congregations."
petrastales@reddit (OP)
I would want more critical inquiry into the different religions as well as lessons spotting inconsistencies between their accounts of history or from a philosophical perspective. Have you ever read Sapiens by Harari?
InsideOutCosmonaut@reddit
Why would they “promote” atheism.
I don’t believe any set of religious beliefs should be promoted in school, from native to imported religions to athiesm.
I’m agnostic, would that be discouraged in athiesm class?
Why not dedicate that time in school for just more science? That’s an infinitely better idea that trying to meddle in peoples beliefs.
Quick_Scheme3120@reddit
Not to mention… you literally aren’t allowed to give your opinions on anything the kids could be influenced to believe if you did.
This includes gay rights, abortion, murder, capital punishment, WWII or obviously anything going on politically in the UK today.
The only thing I give a cold hard personal opinion on is climate change and other environmental abuses. Those are just facts and terrible ones that should concern everyone. But I cannot, for example, give my opinion on renewable energy or vegetarianism/the farming industry.
Tl;dr your opinion as a teacher is completely irrelevant. It is government policy to provide the opportunity for students to develop their own informed opinions and NOT influence them with your beliefs, religious or otherwise. Saying we should enforce beliefs/opinions of any kind is a step towards fascism and propaganda.
barnburner96@reddit
What are you allowed/not allowed to say about climate change? Presumably you are allowed to present man-made climate change as a fact, but not what the solutions are?
Quick_Scheme3120@reddit
Anything that involves subjectivity is not allowed. There is so much misinformation about climate change that I feel it’s important to say ‘no, absolutely not, this is what’s happening.’
Like I said, vegetarianism couldn’t be something I push. Not only is it a lifestyle choice, a lot of it comes with animal politics. I can teach them what vegetarians think and why, when it is relevant to the curriculum and uses voices like David Attenborough’s. I also use my sister as an example in those situations as it’s not moral for her, just a preference. Or the Hebridean people that hunt wildlife due to food scarcity showing it’s necessary to consume animals for some. So variety is essential to allow them to develop their opinions.
And honestly, that’s how it should be. I would be very cautious to teach in a place where personal opinion drives learning material.
petrastales@reddit (OP)
That’s a fair point. I didn’t really mean promote atheism. I want science introduced at an earlier age as well as the critical examination of religions that exist. Harari’s Sapiens was great for this
SilverHelmut@reddit
Yeah, cos the only ideology that's killed almost as many as Islam has been impositional atheism.
Nothing much to go wrong there, is there?
Krobakchin@reddit
Harari’s sapiens is shite fwiw.
gravitasmissing@reddit
I'd rather religion was ignored my daughter did poorly in RE and I was pleased it's as relevant as Harry Potter studies. None of it is real yes the faithful belive it and they have a right to belive and do what they want. Its all man made there's nothing supernatural its just rubbish.
Signal_Profession_83@reddit
Yep, schools for facts. Teach them religion at story time.
I_ALWAYS_UPVOTE_CATS@reddit
An earlier age than what? Kids get taught science lessons from the very first year of primary school. The stuff they learn about the world is based wholly on current accepted scientific fact e.g. evolution, the big bang. There are no 'scientific truths' that are being kept from schoolchildren.
Faith schools can get in the bin, yes, but generally RE is taught from a neutral standpoint - 'this is what X group believes' as opposed to teaching said beliefs as fact. Perhaps the study could be more critical, but then you'd upset moderate religious groups for no real gain.
As I said, I think faith schools have had their day, but most of what you're proposing is already what happens, and I don't think schools are the right target for getting rid of fundamentalism.
Quick_Scheme3120@reddit
I work in a Catholic school. We have non-catholics come here due to the high level of care they receive, SEN or otherwise, due to the Catholic values of the school. I can see it is very important to many religious staff members that teaching here is a vocation, a call from God, which I truly see as a direct result of the school being run on the values of Jesus.
It is a particularly good school I work in. There is 100% an element of high standards in our leadership team and hard work from people who really care about the kids. But I will stand by the fact that the religious element massively influences the way the kids are treated and how staff are respected. Schools nearby me have staff who are being abused and threatened on a daily basis, yet here those kids sort themselves out and improve at ours.
I understand why many people are skeptical of faith schools, but some really do get it right.
nonsequitur__@reddit
I agree. My nephew goes to a catholic school even though we’re not religious. They’re taught about all major faiths. He’s six and his current ‘favourite’ is Hinduism, mostly because he likes the idea of reincarnation. He doesn’t take any of the faiths as fact and understands that they’re beliefs, so I think it’s fair enough to teach them. On the other hand, he loves science and knows more about it than I do. They’ve been on school trips to science museums etc.
Teaofthetime@reddit
I'd be happy if religion was taught but as a part of our societal history. Most importantly we should teach our children how to think rationally and critically so that they don't look to religious thinking to explain the world around them.
Much_Winter2202@reddit
It wouldn't work. I was in a 12 step group for families & friends of alcoholics as a young adult and a lot of people there got a lot of comfort and direction from religion. One woman was from a family of scientists and she'd talk about how they were atheists and made fun of religious people and how hurtful she found it, and how finding a higher power helped her.
Science isn't mutually exclusive with religion, and religion crops up in every human society. There are a number of practicing Mormons, okay, doing things like working at CalTech. Religion scratches an itch for most humans and it's just not going away. You're not going to will it away. It's an enduring part of the human experience.
Wasps_are_bastards@reddit
I’d personally get rid of religion in schools altogether
AnneKnightley@reddit
I think it’s important to study as many religions and denominations as possible because whether people are religious or not, religion is part of history, culture and society, and it encourages tolerance and empathy to learn about other peoples beliefs. I learnt a lot about other religions during RE which really helped me to understand people better. Atheism is another form of belief as is agnosticism- I feel like these got covered in my classes but can’t speak for others.
Science is taught pretty early on so I’m not sure what you mean here really. Science also involves exploration and doubt and questioning in order to find out more about our world, eg scientists now think there could be an outside of the universe whereas until recently it was assumed as the end of existence by many. So “scientific truths” is a bit of a minefield.
Derfel60@reddit
No, the opposite. Not fundamentalism but as a Christian country it is important that our schools recognise that and teach it. Im not a Christian personally, but i loved singing hymns in assembly and collecting canned food for the harvest festival and the like.
andycwb1@reddit
Not going to happen when the head of state is also the head of the church.
Zealousideal_Job6117@reddit
Yes please!
rabid-fox@reddit
This already happens at least in Scotland
UnspeakableBadger@reddit
The UK has declining levels of religiosity. As an atheist & former Catholic, one of the biggest factors in my abandoning religion was learning about other religions. I mean what are the chances that out of all these religions in the world that I happen to have been born into the right one?
I also think that the almost belligerent conflict between science and religion in the United States for example creates a sort of siege mentality that galvanises religious belief. The attitude in the UK seems to be just one of apathy.
So personally I think what we should do is let things take their course and teach children about science (as we currently do), critical thinking (which I don’t believe we currently do) and religion as a cultural practice. I think this will naturally result in a continued reduction in levels of religious adherence.
One_Complex6429@reddit
Communism tried. Religion still flourished, it just went underground. You can't cheat truth
Pleasant-Put5305@reddit
You cannot teach a lack of belief in something.
Okay kids, today's lesson is all about the imaginary flooble people who live inside your teeth. No - no they aren't real. Okay, open your books at chapter 3 - How to get upset about things that don't exist and make a great big fuss
Literally the stupidest people on planet earth.
Michael-3740@reddit
Wrote "promote atheism" then claimed you didn't mean that.
Next time get an adult to check your work before posting.
TaffWaffler@reddit
We teach both science and religion in schools. Religious teachings are not about converting but rather just a look at how different religions work. What’s the issue?
yorkshirewisfom@reddit
The National Religion is Church of England. The King James Bible should be taught in Schools as the Primary Religion, they should then teach what other Religions have in Common with ours. The emphasis should be on what United us rather than Divides us.
petrastales@reddit (OP)
Are you religious ?
yorkshirewisfom@reddit
What a strange question.
I think every one should have a working knowledge of their Nations religion and a decent knowledge of all religions as these seem to be triggers and reasons to cause War and mayhem in the world.
At least know what you are fighting for.
Hefty_Tip7383@reddit
If science isn’t taught in school then you have a problem.
Balthierlives@reddit
Religion and science aren’t mutually exclusive.
And in most countries there’s separation of church and state and public education is neither religious or a religious (laicity)
People’s spiritual lives are their own business. Let them believe what they want. Doesn’t mean you can’t teach science at school. I’d hope this is happening already?
Probably young people need to learn how to critical thinkers about the information they are seeing. What might the motivation of someone be in presenting a certain piece of information or opinion with you? Are they trying to manipulate you or change your opinion? To what end?
That is more valuable
Drewski811@reddit
We have a Government in the name of the Monarch, a monarch who is the head of a branch of religion.
We are a religious state, whether you want to accept that or not.
idontlikemondays321@reddit
A monarch’s personal religious belief plays no part in our lives though. Realistically we are a secular country
Drewski811@reddit
It's not about their personal beliefs, they are the head of the official religion of the country.
Whether society is largely secular is, legally, irrelevant.
iamthefirebird@reddit
Pretty sure we started having science lessons as soon as we started school, earlier if you count the fun science kits you can get for small children. Learning about different religious beliefs and how they tend to influence different ideas is also what RE is for. Actively promoting atheism over other religious beliefs would be unethical - and science is facts and prevailing theories, and the methods by which things are proved. It's not a belief.
I would say that it would have been nice if we had been taught more about different religions, rather than using Christianity as the default example every time, but Christianity was never promoted. Neither was Atheism. Because that would have been unethical. Religious fundamentalism has no place in schools outside of lessons about historical developments and comparisons in RE - and by that I mean it's not there.
I guess some privately-run academies might be able to flaunt such rules, but I have never heard of religious fundamentalism being taught as fact in any school in this country. As it should be.
Suspicious_Neck_5156@reddit
I’d prefer us to get rid of religious schools and teach all of our kids together.
EUskeptik@reddit
Education should be secular as (I believe) it is in France.
-oo-
BadBacksFuryToad@reddit
Just promote critical thinking skills, like in Scandinavian education.
barriedalenick@reddit
At my old school in the 70s we were, rather surprisingly, taught in a very enlightened way about religion. We were taught to think critically about the Bible, and its claims, and given everyday explanations for miracles. We were also taught a lot of science, how to plan and conduct experiments and how to question our results.
SmashedWorm64@reddit
Science should not be taught as fact. It should be taught as a truth. The scientific method should be shown to kids so they understand why we think something works a certain way.
If you look at our understanding of the atom compared to a hundred years ago, it is completely different from what we have now. Who is to say we might still have it wrong?
Even if a child never wants anything to do with science - it still teaches critical thinking.
Likewise, I also think RS is a very important subject. Children should know why the world is the way it is. Religion is so important because it has shaped the world in such a huge way. I wish I had paid more attention in RS class growing up, as I always dismissed it as a waste of time. It also helps children better understand and have more tolerance of their friends, neighbours and cultures.
namiraslime@reddit
In this moment, I am euphoric
Orange_Codex@reddit
You're essentially asking, "should we teach Yuval Harari's philosophy as state dogma?"
Absolutely Hell to the fuck no.
There isn't a religious fundamentalism problem in the UK that could warrant state-mandated atheism, and even if there was why would you pick Harari? Terry Eagleton is still alive.
Chromeballs@reddit
Religion, atheism, all of it should not be a biase in schools but an explanation of culture around you, of history and being informed. Scientific truths, yes, totally, but maybe more importantly teach kids in schools the tools to critically analyse truth and trust, cognitive openness and practice familiarity of the scout mindset over soldier mindset to prevent target bias when its needed. Science is a wonderful platform for critical thinking and open experimental mindset of innovators and adaptation who seek debate not conquest in arguments.
Warm-Marsupial8912@reddit
It may have been a long while ago but I don't remember being taught any unscientific truths. Well, except for different areas on your tongue being dedicated to salty, sweet and sour.
A few lessons focusing on how similar all the religions are then move on to something more useful
petrastales@reddit (OP)
I would want more critical inquiry into the different religions as well as lessons spotting inconsistencies between their accounts of history or from a philosophical perspective
motherof_geckos@reddit
They’re kids, and these are all skills learned throughout school. I’m sensing you’re not a fan of religion, which is fine, but I don’t think teaching kids how to dissect others identities is the way to go in combating extremism
Did_OJ_Simpson_do_it@reddit
No, in fact I’d join a protest against such a policy. Atheism is false and should not be promoted. Why are you far-left militant atheists always trying to force your nihilistic beliefs on us?
petrastales@reddit (OP)
Are you a religious Christian or a cultural one?
Did_OJ_Simpson_do_it@reddit
Religious, why do you ask?
petrastales@reddit (OP)
Because it helps me to understand your stance, which I respect
Suspicious_Banana255@reddit
Religion has no place in a school, what people do away from school is up to them, but school should only teach facts
petrastales@reddit (OP)
Agreed. I didn’t really intend to say promote atheism in school but rather I want science introduced at an earlier age as well as the critical examination of religions that exist. Harari’s Sapiens was great for this
BobBobBobBobBobDave@reddit
Why would you think that would get rid of religious fundamentalism?
Do you think schools at the moment are teaching religious fundamentalism.
MrMonkeyman79@reddit
Science is already taught in schools.
spicyzsurviving@reddit
No. Encourage agnosticism, encourage debate and discovery and yes, scientific knowledge- but no religious or directly irreligious agenda.
West_Mall_6830@reddit
The Simon Phoenix quote from Demolition Man goes, 'You can't take away peoples right to be assholes'.
JeremySausage1@reddit
Absolutely!!!
fartinavacuumm@reddit
Totally
qualityvote2@reddit
Hello u/petrastales! Welcome to r/AskABrit!
For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!