Victoria (AU) schools to offer atheist alternitive to religious education classes

oeb

Hey folks, I came accross this this morning and thought you might be interested in it. Personally, I think that spending the ammount of time that is typicially spent teaching about religion on atheism is as much of a waste of students time. Religion (or atheism) may very well have a place in society, but the schools are not it. Interesting development either way.

What's your opinion on this? Is this just as much of a waste of time? Is it something that you would like to see in Irish schools?

VICTORIAN state primary school students will soon be able to take religious education classes which teach there is no evidence God exists.
The Humanist Society of Victoria has developed a curriculum for primary pupils that the state government accreditation body says it intends to approve, The Sunday Age newspaper reported.

Accredited volunteers will be able to teach their philosophy in the class time allotted for religious instruction, the newspaper said.

As with lessons delivered by faith groups, parents will be able to request that their children do not participate.

"Atheistical parents will be pleased to hear that humanistic courses of ethics will soon be available in some state schools," Victorian Humanist Society president Stephen Stuart said.

The society does not consider itself to be a religious organisation and believes ethics have "no necessary connection with religion".

Humanists believe people are responsible for their own destiny and reject the notion of a supernatural force or God.

source

Mena

Better than having religion stuffed down your throat but personally I'd send my daughter to extra science and math classes instead.

Dades

Interesting development.

One should probably note that the Humanists in this situation are not about "teaching atheism", rather than about their own "humanistic courses of ethics". You don't have to be atheist to be a humanist.

But I for one endorse this product/service.

neilled

oeb wrote: »

Hey folks, I came accross this this morning and thought you might be interested in it. Personally, I think that spending the ammount of time that is typicially spent teaching about religion on atheism is as much of a waste of students time. Religion (or atheism) may very well have a place in society, but the schools are not it. Interesting development either way.

What's your opinion on this? Is this just as much of a waste of time? Is it something that you would like to see in Irish schools?



source

I wouldn't say that the teaching of religion in schools is a waste of time if done in the correct manner. I think a young person coming out of school should have an understanding of the concepts that seemingly govern many other peoples lives around the world. Religion class was what convinced me there was no god as after having to study the various bibles, the contradictions in them were obvious - they simply didn't add up and I had a teacher who encouraged us to make our own minds up. I had a teacher that allowed us to openly argue that various religions positions on things were wrong and once you gave a good answer you got a good grade. Unfortunately his predecessor and successor were of the bible thumping variety and rather than open discussions on ethics, I was subjected to non exam RE during my final years in school which basically consisted of Roman Catholic propaganda.

vibe666

seems like as much of a crock as teaching religion in schools, surely a child sould be allowed to make up their mind.

atheism is still a belief and i think kids should be allowed to grow up without having other peoples beliefs pushed on them and then when theyr'e old enough to make an informed decision, leave them to do just that on their own.

when it comes down to it, we can no more prove that there is no god any more than 'they' can prove there is, so it's up to the individual to decide for themselves.

that said, if it's an optional thing for kids to sign up to or not then maybe that would be okay.

Galvasean

TBH the kids would probably be better off having religious/atheist class scrapped in favour of a study module.

Gambler

Personally I'd rather see a civics\ethics class as a replacement\alternative to religious classes.

PDN

It's hardly a new idea. Atheist classes have been compulsory in Chinese schools for over 50 years.

kiffer

Gambler wrote: »

Personally I'd rather see a civics\ethics class as a replacement\alternative to religious classes.

So pretty much what they're talking about in the article then?
It's an ethics class, presumably for the children of atheists who would rather not have their children told that they are going to hell...
I would rather my child attend a humanist ethics class instead of the sort of RE classes many of my friends got here in Ireland (catholic dogma, delivered by a nun/member of opus dei).
If the RE in Australia is like the RE that I got in secondary school
(looking at many different religions from a round the world, as well as some other ideas) I'd want my kids to do that as well as humanist ethics.

Gambler

So pretty much what they're talking about in the article then?

Yep

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

It's hardly a new idea. Atheist classes have been compulsory in Chinese schools for over 50 years.

It's humanism not atheism. The most objective definition of humanism, the Amsterdam Declaration has seven tenets. Only one even mentions religion.

Tim Robbins

oeb wrote: »

Hey folks, I came accross this...

A superb idea. Just shows you, that people who are pro - active can achieve great things.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's humanism not atheism.

That point has been made and 'overlooked'.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's humanism not atheism. The most objective definition of humanism, the Amsterdam Declaration has seven tenets. Only one even mentions religion.

So you're objecting to the statement in the article quoted in the OP? "Humanists believe people are responsible for their own destiny and reject the notion of a supernatural force or God."

Maybe you should contact the Humanist Society concerned and tell them they don't understand what humanism is?

oeb

Personally, as an atheist, I automaticially associate humanism with atheism.

eoin5

I agree with religious education classes if properly done, its a major part of the world around us.

What I'd prefer to see though is critical thinking classes, there isnt enough of that in the world around us.

Rev Hellfire

PDN wrote: »

So you're objecting to the statement in the article quoted in the OP? "Humanists believe people are responsible for their own destiny and reject the notion of a supernatural force or God."

Maybe you should contact the Humanist Society concerned and tell them they don't understand what humanism is?

Humanism certainly isn't incompatible with religion, in fact the origins of modern humanism is firmly coupled with European Christianity.

PDN

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Humanism certainly isn't incompatible with religion, in fact the origins of modern humanism is firmly coupled with European Christianity.

In this thread the context in which we are using the term is as defined by the organisation in the OP - the Humanist Society of Victoria.

HSV wrote:

What is Humanism?

Humanism is a philosophy based on human values, human knowledge of the natural universe, and human endeavor. It is based on the belief that we are responsible for our own destiny. Humanists reject any notion of the supernatural, and therefore reject the idea that our lives are presided over by any supernatural force or "god", and that our ethics and standards of behavior are "handed down" to us by "divine authority".

The rejection of the supernatural also forces us to question the idea that our existence serves some predetermined "purpose". It is the view of Humanists that we create our own purpose and that we must use our intelligence, our knowledge, and our compassion to build good lives for ourselves and for future generations.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~humanist/aboutus/aboutus.html

So it looks as if the classical definition of 'humanism' (any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate) has now been hijacked and tweaked so as to exclude theists.

Mark Hamill

vibe666 wrote: »

seems like as much of a crock as teaching religion in schools, surely a child sould be allowed to make up their mind.

Not really, kids are stupid. If children were allowed to make up their mind even as to what kind of food they would eat all time they would probably die from a diabetes related illness in their teens.
IMO, what would be best is a class which teaches all (major) religions equally and impartially (ie Christians believe this and this is why, Muslims believe this and ths is why etc) and another class which teaches basic skepticism, critical thinking and logic (ie how to recognise when someone is using a strawman argument, when people are using grammar to hide lies etc). Then when a child has grown up, then they make up their mind.

PDN wrote:

So it looks as if the classical definition of 'humanism' (any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate) has now been hijacked and tweaked so as to exclude theists.

By your "classic" definition, a humanist would believe in any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate. Theists believe in any system or mode of thought or action in which god (or mulitple gods) interests, values, and dignity predominate. One would seem to exclude the other.

Rev Hellfire

PDN wrote: »

In this thread the context in which we are using the term is as defined by the organisation in the OP - the Humanist Society of Victoria.

Indeed you are, I misread it as been applied to Humanist Societies in general. My apologies.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By your "classic" definition, a humanist would believe in any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate. Theists believe in any system or mode of thought or action in which god (or mulitple gods) interests, values, and dignity predominate. One would seem to exclude the other.

No, one would only exclude the other if there was a fundamental conflict between God's interests and those of mankind (ie if God is bad). As a Christian I believe in a good God and so God's interests, values and dignity also promote the best interests, values and dignity of humans.

This theistic humanism is what motivated William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, William Booth, Chad Varah etc. It is the also the reason why I dig wells in Africa etc.

sink

PDN wrote: »

No, one would only exclude the other if there was a fundamental conflict between God's interests and those of mankind (ie if God is bad). As a Christian I believe in a good God and so God's interests, values and dignity also promote the best interests, values and dignity of humans.

This theistic humanism is what motivated William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, William Booth, Chad Varah etc. It is the also the reason why I dig wells in Africa etc.

While humanist applaud you for doing so, we differ when it comes to issues such as gay rights, abortion and euthanasia where we look solely to the well being of those involved and you look towards what "god" wants.

PDN

sink wrote: »

While humanist applaud you for doing so, we differ when it comes to issues such as gay rights, abortion and euthanasia where we look solely to the well being of those involved and you look towards what "god" wants.

Do you realise how arrogant that is? Maybe you should stop assuming that you know what all theists believe about those issues? My views on all 3 of those subjects are based on my desire for the well being of the people involved.

Rev Hellfire

sink wrote: »

While humanist applaud you for doing so, we differ when it comes to issues such as gay rights, abortion and euthanasia where we look solely to the well being of those involved and you look towards what "god" wants.

Who's this 'we' you speak authoritatively for ?

Gambler

Just to try and get back on subject and away from this "what is a humanist" bickering that seems to have taken over here, Ireland does have something almost along those lines, the educate together schools appear to take a very progresive view of religious edication. I am hoping to be able to send any kids I might have to one..

http://www.educatetogether.ie/1_educate_together/whatiseducatetogether.html

sink

PDN wrote: »

Do you realise how arrogant that is? Maybe you should stop assuming that you know what all theists believe about those issues? My views on all 3 of those subjects are based on my desire for the well being of the people involved.

I am only going by my life's experience which led me to presume too much. I'm sorry if offended you. If someone calls themselves a Christian I generally make the assumption that they hold the same views as the majority of that faith which can lead to trouble as that is often not the case.

sink

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Who's this 'we' you speak authoritatively for ?

I'm not speaking as an authority i'm just using my own interpretation of the Amsterdam declaration.

Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.

Dades

I think it's pretty clear that the Humanist Society of Victoria's interpretation of humanism precludes religious belief as a factor in their ethics. Personally I thought this was the case with all modern Humanists.

This of course doesn't mean that theists can't share many (or all) of the same moral views. Whether or not there is conflict would depend on the individual in question.

---

And insofar as the question has come up here regarding beliefs incompatible with humanism, I would suggest less finger-pointing. Perhaps a new thread to scrap over the ownership of "Humanism" is order.

ChocolateSauce

Sounds like a fine idea to me.

Morbert

vibe666 wrote: »

when it comes down to it, we can no more prove that there is no god any more than 'they' can prove there is, so it's up to the individual to decide for themselves.

Atheism is not about proving that there's no God. It's not about that at all.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

My views on all 3 of those subjects are based on my desire for the well being of the people involved.

Yes but don't you reach this view based on the assertion that God's views (represented in the Bible) are the best interest of those involved, irrespective of their individual interests? A belief stemming from the idea that it is in everyone's interest to please God, which is exactly the type of thinking that humanist organisations reject?