NO NO NO Schools have to include religion classes, forum told

crucamim

gvn wrote: »

"Thanks for posting here, crucamim. Like others on this forum--J C and dead one, to name two--your posting here does more to harm whatever cause you might have than it does to help it."

I think you are angry because I have exposed an attempt to steal schools from Catholics.

"I'm extremely thankful that those in power, those who hold a position to make decisions regarding our schools and our education system, do not think like you."

How do you know that they do not think like me?

robindch

crucamim wrote: »

Catholic schools should remain Catholic schools.

Good heavens, do these schools meet all the Vatican's requirements for being catholic?

Do they go to church on Sunday? If so, why door do they go through? How do schools eat the communion crackers?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Unfortunately, Descartes was not a universally critical thinker and using a criterion such as intuition or 'fishiness' concerning facts rather than processes, as CerebralCortex points out, is an extremely crap basis -- arguably the worst -- upon which to place one's critical faculties.

Fair enough, although I do appreciate Descartes I do disagree with him in aspects I was just looking to him as an example. I do believe that a lot of the faculties we have for thinking and probing into things are more intuitive rather than learnt. Even in learning about this type of thing from others we can still question as to how they are any more right than anyone else and if what they are saying really makes sense.

Placing our critical faculties on anything but our own intuition and common sense means trusting in authorities.

Admittedly it feels that I'm becoming a little piggy-in-the-middle in this discussion now due to crucamim's position which is interesting

crucamim: I'm with the others in saying that a systematic distrust of other people because they don't share your religious beliefs is a little extreme. Although I disagree with most of the chaps here, I do believe at the very least that they have the best interests at heart in what they are arguing here.

Dades

crucamim - learn to quote people properly or I am going to start editing your posts.

If I have to do that too many times I might get cross.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

If a school goes beyond the recommended time by the Dept of Education for doing this in I'd suggest reporting it.

A lot of this stuff can be discerned from simply asking ones child about what they learned today or how their day was.

I still think to say this as a general norm about faith schools is hysteria.

Sorry, philo, should have been clearer. I was talking about the teachers manipulating the children into accepting a religion as fact. The teacher didn't exceed the time allowed for religion, but did emotionally blackmail children into accepting Catholic dogma.

philologos

koth wrote: »

Sorry, philo, should have been clearer. I was talking about the teachers manipulating the children into accepting a religion as fact. The teacher didn't exceed the time allowed for religion, but did emotionally blackmail children into accepting Catholic dogma.

How did they emotionally blackmail? I'm just curious.

Teaching thing as fact is a rather easy one to get around. All one has to do is say "Christians believe" at the start of a sentence. I think it probably makes a difference.

Turtwig

I'd like to write a big post about critical thinking and about how it is completely devoid in human life. Instead I realised it would just make me end up sounding a tad depressed and monotonous when talking to my bro on skype later. I think I shall let it pass. Most people who think they are critical thinkers suck at it.And I mean REALLY suck.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

I'd like to write a big post about critical thinking and about how it is completely devoid in human life. Instead I realised it would just make me end up sounding a tad depressed and monotonous when talking to my bro on skype later. I think I shall let it pass. Most people who think they are critical thinkers suck at it.And I mean REALLY suck.

That would be using your own critical thinking to criticise someone elses critical thinking. How can you be so sure that you don't suck at it? :pac:

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

How did they emotionally blackmail? I'm just curious.

They tell the children that they best behave or they'll be separated from their family for all eternity. Lots of fire and brimstone stuff. It wasn't all the teachers, there were only 2 that were that hardcore. Some of the teachers only paid lip service to the religious stuff, but it's the stuff that makes up scared/upset that tends to leave a mark.

philologos

koth wrote: »

They tell the children that they best behave or they'll be separated from their family for all eternity. Lots of fire and brimstone stuff. It wasn't all the teachers, there were only 2 that were that hardcore. Some of the teachers only paid lip service to the religious stuff, but it's the stuff that makes up scared/upset that tends to leave a mark.

I believe that all schools should regulate against anything that is likely to cause trauma or upset. By the by, it isn't only in faith schools where stuff like this could happen. I could think of quite a few examples that could arise in a secular school.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Teaching thing as fact is a rather easy one to get around. All one has to do is say "Christians believe" at the start of a sentence. I think it probably makes a difference.

You'll get no argument from me on that one

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I believe that all schools should regulate against anything that is likely to cause trauma or upset. By the by, it isn't only in faith schools where stuff like this could happen. I could think of quite a few examples that could arise in a secular school.

I assume you mean something like someone saying god doesn't exist in class?

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

That would be using your own critical thinking to criticise someone elses critical thinking. How can you be so sure that you don't suck at it? :pac:

Bayesian inference and recognition of biases. By learning to work against the weaknesses of your own mind.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Bayesian inference and recognition of biases. By learning to work against the weaknesses of your own mind.

How do you know the weaknesses of your mind?

Turtwig

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Bayesian

If the world understood Bayes, the world would be a better place.:D

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

How do you know the weaknesses of your mind?

Seriously? Cognitive Science.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Seriously? Cognitive Science.

I mean how does one with a weak mind know which particular areas of their mind are weak. I mean how many people actually seriously look to cognitive science to determine what they should accept and what they should reject? A tiny minority, yet a lot of us seem to have a rather good means of determining when something is not quite right, or requires further investigation.

Simply put, common sense is the only rudimentary means that doesn't involve trusting in authorities.

Turtwig

What is common sense Philogos? Be Specific.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

What is common sense Philogos? Be Specific.

The faculty that one uses to determine what content value there is in something, and to determine whether that content value actually corresponds with reality or at least reality-as-perceived.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I mean how does one with a weak mind know which particular areas of their mind are weak. I mean how many people actually seriously look to cognitive science to determine what they should accept and what they should reject? A tiny minority,

Very few unfortunately, but just because very few people don't do something doesn't mean they shouldn't. Argumentum ad populum.

philologos wrote: »

yet a lot of us seem to have a rather good means of determining when something is not quite right, or requires further investigation.

Anecdotally this is absolute nonsense, time and time again people with the best intentions make the worst decisions. The evidence from cog sci points this direction too.

philologos wrote: »

Simply put, common sense is the only rudimentary means that doesn't involve trusting in authorities.

How does cog sci have you trusting authorities. Even if it does why does "easy to do" equal accuracy?

CerebralCortex

Malty_T wrote: »

If the world understood Bayes, the world would be a better place.:D

Sing it brother!

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Very few unfortunately, but just because very few people don't do something doesn't mean they shouldn't. Argumentum ad populum.

I'm not intending to argue rather just to ask a question. I do think you decided to use this model initially based on common sense though.

Ultimately people determine ideas based on what makes sense. If you don't which I would strain to believe but I'll take your word you certainly are unique.

ShooterSF

philologos wrote: »

I wasn't explicitly taught critical thinking, it came naturally. As I suspect it did for you.

Like others, some. I still feck up from time to time. Did you have critical thinking at 6 years of age though or were you like me at the time indoctrinated into the favoured religion of your primary school?

That was the point. You say that we don't have to accept a claim but at that age you are taught that it's as much a fact that god created Adam and Eve as if you have 2 sweets and someone takes one away you only have one left.
When I was six I could verify that if another kid took one of my two sweets I only had one left (and a sense of sadness). My teacher didn't seem out to trick me so I trusted her. It took a long time, over a decade of my life (I don't want to say ruined but) made less enjoyable until I shook off the belief that was I was clearly indoctrinated into.
You only have to look at the fact that many of us here believed until our critical thinking developed further (say into our teens or lower for the geniuses). Even still most of us had internal battles because of how hard it was drilled into us. We didn't all evaluate the idea at 6 and find it believable and then change our minds later. We were, for want of a better word conned into believing it was absolute fact and until we learned to question it we were indoctrinated.

Secondary schools by the way from what I have seen have improved their approach to religion somewhat but plenty still fall into the category of indoctrination.

I can't see how you could have any argument that schools should teach about religion rather than to teach religion. I'd expect it from the likes of JC or Donatello but not you. If I'm right then it doesn't really matter if you think indoctrination is too strong a word (just realise you're wrong ) as both of us share at least that much desired movement to the secular vision (maybe more!)

cursai

Maybe they can introduce atheism as a religious subject!

Turtwig

cursai wrote: »

Maybe they can introduce atheism as a religious subject!

Great idea genius! Should they also include non butterfly collecting while they are at it?

The Mad Hatter

Malty_T wrote: »

Great idea genius! Should they also include non butterfly collecting while they are at it?

I think he was joking...

Turtwig

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I think he was joking...

I'm very much doubting that...

crucamim

Dades wrote: »

crucamim - learn to quote people properly or I am going to start editing your posts.

If I have to do that too many times I might get cross.

I am not able to learn. It is too complicated. Remember, I am only a Catholic. It is most unreasonable of you to expect me to be clever enough to learn how to quote people properly.

Anyway, on this thread I have made my points.

Leave us Catholics alone.
Stop trying to steal our schools.
Stop trying to prevent Catholic schools from teaching Catholicism.
Stop trying to infiltrate our schools.
Stop trying to bully Catholic schools in rejecting Catholic children in order to leave room for the children of non-Catholics.
Stop demanding equality for non-Catholics in our schools.
Stop questioning the right of Catholics to refuse to allow their children to be taught by non-Catholics.
Stop trying to impose financial punishments on Catholics for keeping their children safe.

And, to return to the topic of the thread, people should be permitted to establish no-religion schools and should receive the same State support as do the denominational schools. Unfortunately, that will not satisfy those many posters who seem determined to undermine the right of Catholic children to be insulated from non-Catholics while at school.

What a self-satisfying, self-indulgent persecution complex. I haven't encountered as many Catholics with persecution complexes in my life as I have on Boards in the past few months.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I'm not intending to argue rather just to ask a question. I do think you decided to use this model initially based on common sense though.

I'd like to think I adopt models because they work.

philologos wrote: »

Ultimately people determine ideas based on what makes sense. If you don't which I would strain to believe but I'll take your word you certainly are unique.

What makes sense is where the evidence points. When I mentioned Bayesian infrerence(I suggest you read up on this), I was alluding to the way I try to behave. I determine the probability of the truth of a hypothesis based on it's supporting evidence over other hypotheses. I may be in a minority but I'm certainly not unique by a long shot.