Atheism classes in our schools to add balance.

Bullseye1

Out for a nice meal last night with my wife (Chinese New Year and all that) and we got talking about her growing up in a communism country and the classes she attended. She told me that there was Atheism Classes, I was kinda intrigued as to what was thought. Essentially they were been told that Priests were scamming them and the dangers of getting involved in religion.

Do you guys/gals feel that a similar class could be introduced in this country as a balance to religious study. And let the kids make an informed decision.

The Mad Hatter

No, that's a ridiculous idea.

a general psychology class, sure

some brainwashing anti-religion class, no, that's stupid

Bullseye1

I'm not suggesting a brainwashing class but a class to counter balance an argument that God may or may not exist.

Penn

Rather than introducing a class for balance, the religion class they already have should be balanced. Teaching about religion, all religion, as a concept some people believe in, rather than "This is the truth and this one religion is the only right one"

MrPudding

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting a brainwashing class but a class to counter balance an argument that God may or may not exist.

Telling kids that priests are "scamming" them is not bring balance.

MrP

The Mad Hatter

Kids shouldn't be told in school that religion is true or false. The main difference between a good education and a bad one is that kids should be taught not what to think, but how to think.

A comparative religion class that addresses different religions from around the world and how different cultures believe is of quite a lot of use, as is a moral philosophy class. But Christian Doctrine or atheism? No, thanks.

Bullseye1

MrPudding wrote: »

Telling kids that priests are "scamming" them is not bring balance.

MrP

Again I am not suggesting we adopt the communist Lenin philosophy. But it is interesting that brainwashing was mentioned.

So you guys would be more amenable to religious classes being dropped than a counter point being offered?

Beruthiel

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Do you guys/gals feel that a similar class could be introduced in this country as a balance to religious study. And let the kids make an informed decision.

The ideologies of Chairman Mao are not something we should give any serious credence to.

MarkR

Science class?

Bullseye1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

So you guys would be more amenable to religious classes being dropped than a counter point being offered?[/I]

comparative religion or no religion. not two different forms of doctrine until they dont know if they're coming or going
a little more maths and science in general would be better

Bullseye1

MarkR wrote: »

Science class?

LOL. I don't think they stretch that far. Besides i cannot recall science class in Primary School.:p

Ellis Dee

Not a very good idea. How does one teach atheism anyway? Atheism is a failure, a refusal to believe the unbelievable, to accept as fact something for which there is no proof and could never be any proof.

It would be much better to remove religious classes from schools altogether. Schools are places where children are supposed to learn how to think, not have their heads stuffed with all kinds of bosh about non-corporeal beings. :rolleyes:

Let them go to churches to learn about religion, if that's what their parents ill-advisedly want.:D

By all means let schools have lessons where children are given outline introductions to the contents of the major world ideologies and belief systems, but are not indoctrinated to accept any of these systems as being the only genuine truth. That way, in this globalised world, it will be easier for them to understand why so many people in the world are misguided by one or other religion.:cool:

Bullseye1

bluewolf wrote: »

comparative religion or no religion. not two different forms of doctrine until they dont know if they're coming or going
a little more maths and science in general would be better

Oh I agree with need more maths and science in particular in primary school but that would require a major overhaul of how subjects in general are thought at that level. If kids a better understanding of maths and science before entering secondary school they maybe more inclined to tackle higher maths/science.

Peregrinus

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting a brainwashing class but a class to counter balance an argument that God may or may not exist.

What’s the counterbalance to an argument that God may or may not exist?

I’m not just trying to be smart; this actually points to the problem with your suggestion.

“Does God exist?” is a religious question, and if you take a position on that and argue for it, that’s a religious discussion and, in the educational context, the class in which you have such discussions is a religion class - not because you call it that, necessarily, but because it in fact is.

Just as, in an ethics class, you might take the position that there are no objective moral absolutes, or the opposing position. Either way, it’s an ethics class by virtue of the fact that you are discussing that question in it. Or, in a science class, if you argue that light is a particle, or a wave, or something else, or that a particular postulated subatomic particle does or does not exist, it’s a science class by virtue of the fact that you are arguing in either direction on that point.

So, your wife did have religion classes in her school; she had classes in which religious ideas were discussed - classes the purpose of which was the discussion of relgious ideas. Those are religions classes, and they don’t cease to be so merely because she and her classmates were encouraged to adopt atheistic positions on the religious questions considered.

(No, I’m not saying that atheism is a religion or that atheists are religious. I’m just saying that atheists can and do study religion/talk about religion/adopt and argue for particular positions on religious questions. And in fact they usually are identified as atheists precisely because of the positions they adopt on certain religious questions, like “does God exist?”)

Michael Nugent

This is an issue that Atheist Ireland has been raising with the Department of Education.

Children should be taught in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner about the different religious and nonreligious beliefs that exist. That would include being taught about atheism, but not being taught that atheism is true.

The phrase "objective, critical and pluralistic" in this context is recommended by the Irish Human Rights Commission, enshrined in the Toledo Guiding Principles, and ruled on by the ECHR.

It is a different from faith formation, which is what the churches want to include (and generally do include) in religious education/instruction.

robindch

Michael Nugent wrote: »

[...] faith formation [...]

Ugh. "Faith formation" has to be up there with "ethos" as a bland term used to disguise an unpleasant reality.

If "indoctrination" is too strong a substitute, then perhaps "faith injection" or something similar is ok?

kylith

Maybe a class in Logic or Critical Thinking.

Gbear

Hello all! Long time stalker here!:o

Too much of the principles of education has been handed down from the time when it was about learning scripture by rote.

There is far too little practical, useful and applicable education.
Why aren't 16 or 17 yo's taught how to drive? Cook? Clean? Do a budget? These are all things that are part of adult life but somehow, doing home ec is considered "too gay" and business studies "too boring".

Another aspect more pertinent to this particular thread is the rote learning of History, Science, Geography etc..

I think Religion should be absorbed into a comparative and applied History class that's used to assess not the facts of history, (whether religion is nonsense or not, it had very real ramifications) but what those facts resulted in and what caused them to occur in the first place.
Why did Christianity come about? What did Mao gain by starving millions of his people?

Doing so could be used as a tool to educate about the dangers of fanaticism, autocracy etc, rather than just learning that they happened.
Alot of education seems to be about learning trivia for the sake of it rather than trying to get any better understanding of how the world works.
Learning the laws of thermodynamics is fine but it's far better to learn how they were arrived at and what they achieve.

iguana

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Children should be taught in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner about the different religious and nonreligious beliefs that exist. That would include being taught about atheism, but not being taught that atheism is true.

While I don't disagree with this idea I do wonder if this actually needs a separate religion class. Can't children learn about other religions in history, science, social studies, civics and political geography? Because it's going to be impossible to give an actual fair and balanced account of all world religions, there are too many of them.

Instead it would be better, imo, to include lessons about specific religions into other existing subjects. If kids are learning about the reformation they can learn the differences between the reigning Catholicism and the divergent Protestant churches that grew up at this time. They can learn about why this happened and the impact that then had on world events. The same goes for learning about the Tudors and Stewarts, the American colonies, Irish history, etc. In science the discovery of certain principles can occasionally be coupled with the reactions to certain discoveries that came from the major relevant religions and why, like Galileo's and Darwin's struggles with the churches. Social studies and civics could include lessons about modern religions and the impacts they have on their followers and world events. While political geography also includes learning about the religious make-up of the people in the region being studied.

Logical Fallacy

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Again I am not suggesting we adopt the communist Lenin philosophy. But it is interesting that brainwashing was mentioned.

So you guys would be more amenable to religious classes being dropped than a counter point being offered?

What counter point?

"Boys and girls, there is no god....that it's for the year".

Peregrinus

iguana wrote: »

While I don't disagree with this idea I do wonder if this actually needs a separate religion class. Can't children learn about other religions in history, science, social studies, civics and political geography? . . . .

This is a good point. But I think there's a bit more to it than that. You are essentially suggesting that we look at the consequences of religious belief as manifested in history, geography, economics, etc, and that we look at the content of at least some religious beliefs, to the extent necessary to understand the consquences.

But I think we can go further; there's an important philosophical side to this. Does God exist? Does the answer to that question matter? Why (or why not)? What are some of the ways that people have sought to answer that question? And we could ask similar questions about, say, the distinction between the material and the spiritual, or about the connection between ethics and religion, and a host of other questions.

These are important questions, and they can't be reduced to matters of history and geography and other social sciences. For better or worse, religion classes are about as most participants in the Irish educational system ever come to any kind of education in philosophy or philosophical thinking, and I think if religious education is replaced or reformed it should be in that direction.

RichieC

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting a brainwashing class but a class to counter balance an argument that God may or may not exist.

Reality teaches people this well enough.

dmw07

RichieC wrote: »

Reality teaches people this well enough.

It's hard to see reality behind the veil of faith.

seamus

Religion should be part of the history module. Not because "Religion is History", hur hur, but because the two are so intertwined that students will get a good grasp of why and how religions came out in the context of the times they appeared in.

I think this will make it easier to understand religions as arbitrary, plucked-from-the-sky viewpoints instead of trying to teach them in a "some people believe...." manner. I could be wrong though.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

Religion should be part of the history module. Not because "Religion is History", hur hur, but because the two are so intertwined that students will get a good grasp of why and how religions came out in the context of the times they appeared in.

I think this will make it easier to understand religions as arbitrary, plucked-from-the-sky viewpoints instead of trying to teach them in a "some people believe...." manner. I could be wrong though.

Except that (a) the view that religions are arbitrary, plucked-from-the-sky viewpoints is obviously a contentious one, and (b) whether you think it's true or false, it's clearly not the business of the state to mandate that this view be taught to all children. That's pretty much what the OP referred to.

Westernman

I feel that the way most RC schools teach religion especially in Ireland usually have the child indoctrinated before the have come of age to question.

Im a non believing RC and wished for my children to also question religion so put no pressure on them and didn't wish for them to make there communion. However my eldest at the time was very upset when I told her and begged me to allow her to make it. Part of me thinks it was because she didnt want to feel left out and also we wanted this lovely princess dress to wear.

Now she is a little older and of an age to make her own decisions yet already a part of the RC church.

MagicMarker

Westernman wrote: »

Im a non believing RC

A what now?

Westernman

MagicMarker wrote: »

A what now?

lol I was brought up Roman Catholic but now im spiritual but not religious, so I believe we are more than the body but I dont believe any church doctrine.

sbsquarepants

Bullseye1 wrote: »

...... She told me that there was Atheism Classes,......Do you guys/gals feel that a similar class could be introduced in this country as a balance to religious study..

There already is, it's called science! But we make a mess of that too.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Kids shouldn't be told in school that religion is true or false. The main difference between a good education and a bad one is that kids should be taught not what to think, but how to think.
.

Exactly, that's what's wrong with the education system here (and probably elsewhere too) We teach kids big lists of facts to remember, instead of teaching them how to ascertain if something is fact or fiction for themselves. For example there is a row going on at the moment about the new physics syllabus, which intends to teach our kids that protons and nuetrons are fundamental particles, a "fact" known to be false for at least a couple of decades. How ridiculous is that, to teach things known to be wrong!

iguana

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How ridiculous is that, to teach things known to be wrong!

The school syllabus is full of things that are known to be wrong. History is, ime, the worst offender. Much of it is simplified to a point where it becomes completely nonfactual.

iguana

iguana wrote: »

The school syllabus is full of things that are known to be wrong. History is, ime, the worst offender. Much of it is simplified to a point where it becomes completely nonfactual.

But galileo did come from space

actually the whole galileo thing really gets to me sometimes, it wasn't until years later of reading about him i found out about the whole Simplicio thing, bit of a difference from "he was burned for being a scientist omg!"
i suppose there must be much worse

dmw07

iguana wrote: »

The school syllabus is full of things that are known to be wrong. History is, ime, the worst offender. Much of it is simplified to a point where it becomes completely nonfactual.

Good point. History is a very contentious subject. Depending on which country you live in. Science in the main does not change from country to country so much but history diversifies too much across the globe.

Perhaps some sort of health warning should be attached with each syllabus. There could be a grading to highlight how non-factual each module is. Like World History in Europe getting an 8 (Imo it's the most dubious subject on the planet. Outside of religion, but that's a pseudo subject) and subjects like Maths getting a 0-1. Each health warning would dilute the weight of each module so students would then tend to opt for the higher weighted subjects to get better grades. Choosing more factual subjects would give students a better grounding in their educational lives.

Also as a result, we might have less honours degree history students claiming the social (pinch of salt time!, it's a joke) and less religious folk looking for free money. Which are never bad things

Jimoslimos

seamus wrote: »

Religion should be part of the history module. Not because "Religion is History", hur hur, but because the two are so intertwined that students will get a good grasp of why and how religions came out in the context of the times they appeared in.

I think this will make it easier to understand religions as arbitrary, plucked-from-the-sky viewpoints instead of trying to teach them in a "some people believe...." manner. I could be wrong though.

This^^^

I also don't agree with 'teaching' atheism in the manner most subjects are taught. Religion also shouldn't be on the syllabus as a separate subject but neither should it be completely ignored.

Rather the Bible, Qu'ran, etc., should be taught as a module in history, with the same weight lent to other historical and philosophical texts such as works by Aristotle, Plato, Virgil, Confucious, etc.

joethatoom

I wouldn/t have minded studying Atheism in school. The exam would have been pretty easy also.

Q1. Does God Exist?
Answer: No

Sarky

You can't teach atheism. It's just a natural result that tends to arise from being taught everything else properly.

joethatoom

To fix all problems I think that religion should just be removed from schools.

Sin City

Religeon could be mixed in with philosophy but the sheer size of Religion means it should be its own subject in itself. I see no reason why Religion should be scoffed at. Its an ideology and should be taught, Atheisim should not be taught, however students should be made critically evaluate what they are learning and decide for themselves what they think to be true for them. As Athesism itself isnt a subject, its a reaction to a subject

MagicMarker

Sin City wrote: »

Religeon could be mixed in with philosophy but the sheer size of Religion means it should be its own subject in itself. I see no reason why Religion should be scoffed at. Its an ideology and should be taught, Atheisim should not be taught, however students should be made critically evaluate what they are learning and decide for themselves what they think to be true for them. As Athesism itself isnt a subject, its a reaction to a subject

Eh? Shouldn't all ideologies be taught then?

sbsquarepants

iguana wrote: »

The school syllabus is full of things that are known to be wrong. History is, ime, the worst offender. Much of it is simplified to a point where it becomes completely nonfactual.

History is a tricky one though. As the saying goes, history is written by the victors. Most people aren't too keen to record their own indiscretions or atrocities. Take the british for example, they are thought that they had a glorious empire that spanned the entire world and was the envy of everyone - not that they enslaved and plundered half the globe. Most "history" is extremely slanted one way or the other.

joethatoom

Philosophy should be the core subject for all schools from primary school up to the leaving cert.

baddebt

bluewolf wrote: »

a
some brainwashing anti-religion class, no, that's stupid

but religion classes are brainwashing classes

seamus

History is a tricky one though. As the saying goes, history is written by the victors. Most people aren't too keen to record their own indiscretions or atrocities. Take the british for example, they are thought that they had a glorious empire that spanned the entire world and was the envy of everyone - not that they enslaved and plundered half the globe. Most "history" is extremely slanted one way or the other.

Not to mention that if you speak to someone with a UK education, they'll tell you that Oliver Cromwell was a great man, a hero and an idol.
If you speak to anyone educated in Ireland, Oliver Cromwell was the first incarnation of Hitler. Only worse, and with more baby murdering.

I agree that history isn't ideal, perhaps it would be better concentrating on some core hsitorical events rather than simplifying and watering down a whole pile of them.

I do like the idea of a philosophy syllabus which teaches the theory and history of religious thought rather than trying to mix it up with facts.

joethatoom

I usually did my homework during religion class

Sarky

I wish I could have done that. Any religion teachers I had were either that particular type of elderly Catholic who doesn't seem to know just what is or isn't canon any more and reads the Medjugorje Herald more than the bible, or those priests who tried so hard to be trendy and hip and down with the kids. Both required far too much interaction from the class to think about getting something useful done.

sbsquarepants

Sarky wrote: »

I wish I could have done that. Any religion teachers I had were either that particular type of elderly Catholic who doesn't seem to know just what is or isn't canon any more and reads the Medjugorje Herald more than the bible, or those priests who tried so hard to be trendy and hip and down with the kids. Both required far too much interaction from the class to think about getting something useful done.

Not THAT type of interaction i hope!:eek::eek:

iguana

Sarky wrote: »

I wish I could have done that. Any religion teachers I had were either that particular type of elderly Catholic who doesn't seem to know just what is or isn't canon any more and reads the Medjugorje Herald more than the bible, or those priests who tried so hard to be trendy and hip and down with the kids. Both required far too much interaction from the class to think about getting something useful done.

Still better than many of my religion classes in secondary school which consisted of the religion teacher playing Charlie Landsborough's My Forever Friend on a loop for 40 minutes and telling us to think about the message.:mad:

iguana

sbsquarepants wrote: »

History is a tricky one though. As the saying goes, history is written by the victors. Most people aren't too keen to record their own indiscretions or atrocities. Take the british for example, they are thought that they had a glorious empire that spanned the entire world and was the envy of everyone - not that they enslaved and plundered half the globe. Most "history" is extremely slanted one way or the other.

Or history in Irish school where the rise of Protestantism has the tone of the rise of the Empire in Star Wars.

But even objective facts became nonsense. Regardless of whether you feel like it was a good thing or a bad thing Henry VIII never converted to Protestantism as my history book said.

And that's just the books, half of the teachers just spout whatever urban legends they picked up over the years and teach them as fact. My 3rd year science teacher insisted that there was no scientific way to prove bees could fly.:rolleyes: A history teacher told us there was no conscription in Ireland in WW1 because women had recently been given the vote so voted against it as women don't like to see their sons and husbands killed.:rolleyes: There are so many things I learned in school that I believed as fact only to later learn they were absolute crap. And nearly as many times in school when I'd get in trouble because the teacher was trying to teach something I already knew was wrong.

robindch

iguana wrote: »

Or history in Irish school where the rise of Protestantism has the tone of the rise of the Empire in Star Wars.

You're telling me

Over the main blackboard, my primary teacher in 5th and 6th classes had placed a sepia print of some relative, an uncle if memory serves, dressed up in some military outfit, staring somberly towards the camera, I suppose taken some time before he got himself killed while fighting for whatever cause he was involved in. Which was presumably nationalist, since our teacher had little time for the English and dwelt extensively on the perfidy of the English, the misery of the famine, Mr Boycott, lots about the the landlords and plenty of Irish. I recall our sixth-class school play was something he wrote (AFAIR) himself on the 1798 rebellion, and the nationalist glory that pertained thereto.

Sheesh, does anybody remember what it was like in this country during the mid-to-late 70's, especially down the country?

muppeteer

There is willful biased ignorance, mostly nationalist bias, and there is just ignorance. I once had a LC science teacher tell the class that the moon does not have enough gravity to walk around on, so the astronauts needed to be tethered down to stop them drifting off. I'm sure it was just coincidental that Armageddon was recently on tv.:)

Sarky

I used to have a geography teacher who didn't know the difference between Farenheit and Celsius. He's say things like "have ye ever stuck yer hand inwater at 99 degrees? Nearly boilin'! No wonder you feel bad when your temperature is in the 90's..."

He's a Fine Gael TD now, last time I checked. Go figure.