Teaching Religion at School - OzChess

**Gumshoe Mystery** · 08-08-2008, 04:26 PM

Im an atheist however I am in favour of teaching religion in school. I was taught religion in school but religious education was learning about all religions though it was treated as about of a small study in each.

I am not in favour of religion in the science class but religion is relevant in the world and its important to be able to view people through the lens of what they believe.

**Fischer-Fan** · 08-09-2008, 01:31 PM

i was taught religion in school but it was a parochial school. i am not in favor of religion in public schools. for those who wish their children to be indoctrinated into a particular religion, there are private schools. Even though not all are accessible to everyone because some are to expensive, many offer discounted tuition rates, a sliding scale or even free tuition for parishioners sometimes.

**Iconoclast** · 08-09-2008, 08:54 PM

Yes, teach religion, don't inculcate religiosity. Furthermore, religion should be a topic in both Society and Culture, and Science. S&C could look at its influences upon us, past present and future. Science could look at it as a example of what anti-science is.

**Noddy** · 08-10-2008, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Yes, teach religion, don't inculcate religiosity. Furthermore, religion should be a topic in both Society and Culture, and Science. S&C could look at its influences upon us, past present and future. Science could look at it as a example of what anti-science is.

Teaching about religion is very different from teaching religion in school. Typically the study of religion is a matter of history and philosophy and it is why fudamentalist religious types often get frustrated in university classes about religion since those classes are more about secular interest in it than recruiting others to believe.

So I agree that in part of the human history of belief, religion is worthy of study as long as all other major belief systems are compared in detail, from shamanistic mysticisms through buddhism. However, given the scope of historical detail and philosophic depth of the world's religions, it is unlikely to get any decent treatment at a grade school level. High schools might be able to pull it off better but civic histories and other basic studies take up so much curriculum space it is hard to imagine how it could be squeezed in except as an elective. So as a separate study religion is probably better left to history classes and theologic studies at a university level.

**Chessic-Adventures** · 08-10-2008, 03:03 PM

I wouldn't mind seeing a comparative religions class taught, so long as it was done strictly from a secular perspective. Teach the facts about religions, teach how they are similar and how they are different. Do not teach that any of them are true.

However, I have no confidence whatsoever that any school, and especially private schools, could actually do this sufficiently. Therefore it is probably a good idea not to do it at all.

**Firegoat7** · 08-10-2008, 10:21 PM

Hi,

Doesn't the question depend on what sort of school the child is enrolled in?

cheers Fg7

**Iconoclast** · 08-10-2008, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by Thomas Bishop

However, given the scope of historical detail and philosophic depth of the world's religions,

Religion has NO philosophical depth. Religous philosophy is an oxymoron.

So as a separate study religion is probably better left to history classes and theologic studies at a university level.

If only matters theological were rightly left until university, we would not have infected the minds of children with the tosh in the first place. Teaching a religion to children is like teaching them, Ninja death holds, oral sex and where to buy crystal meth - wholly WRONG!.

**YumYum** · 08-11-2008, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Hi,

Doesn't the question depend on what sort of school the child is enrolled in?

cheers Fg7

Teaching religion in school is a great idea!

I'm in favor of teaching religion in schools as long as it is put on part with teaching similar fantasy like mythology, superstition, supernatural and paranormal stuff.

Here are some possible lessons

Non-Science : Myths and Superstitions

1. Science vs Non-science - What Defines Them
2. History of Religion and Mythology
3. Present-Day Religions and Superstitions
4. The Psychology of Believing in Non-science
5. Non-Science in Cults, Politics, and Money-Making Schemes

**Noddy** · 08-11-2008, 06:44 PM

Many people are confused about what religion is and how it fits in to the scheme of things. Right now it is mostly ignored in schools. It would be far more educational to learn what religion is in the context of all other sciences. So many people are confused about it precisely because it's omitted. Asking why it's omitted is like taboo.

Non-science is the important distinction because everything else in school is a study of something real or dervied from reality.

Why do we study Mathematics, History, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, English and not religion? Isn't that an important question to answer in either government, social studies, or some introductory general science class?

Science = knowledge. Knowledge is divided into categories, knowledge about events of the past history, knowledge about logic and it's relationship math, knowledge about living organisims - biology, knowledge about the fundamental workings of the universe - physics. Religion is absent because it's not knowledge about anything real, and yet it's so prevelant in our societies. Why is certainly a good question.

**Iconoclast** · 08-11-2008, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by YumYum

4. The Psychology of Believing in Non-science

Last year I read "Breaking The Spell" - Daniel Dennett. It is worth the read. Looks at how religion is - possibly - inevitable.

**Iconoclast** · 08-11-2008, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Thomas Bishop

It would be far more educational to learn what religion is in the context of all other sciences.

I hope you are not suggesting that religion is a science.

Religion is absent because it's not knowledge about anything real, and yet it's so prevelant in our societies. Why is certainly a good question.

It is prevelent because stupid people continue to be born. In the past, nearly everyone was a believer because there was no other system of thought to challenge it. Now there is science, so now there is no excuse for humans to be religious.

Today there are only two types of people who are religious: Those who had their thinking mechanisms destroyed by being taught religion from an early age; and those who are congenitally stupid. Either way, the only way to stop religion is to prevent religiosity being taught to the young.

**Firegoat7** · 08-12-2008, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Today there are only two types of people who are religious: Those who had their thinking mechanisms destroyed by being taught religion from an early age; and those who are congenitally stupid. Either way, the only way to stop religion is to prevent religiosity being taught to the young.

I don't think this is really fair. There are plenty of intelligent Religious people. Furthermore, In some circumstances, Religion may offer more to young people then science.

cheers Fg7

**Chessic-Adventures** · 08-12-2008, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I hope you are not suggesting that religion is a science.

It is prevelent because stupid people continue to be born. In the past, nearly everyone was a believer because there was no other system of thought to challenge it. Now there is science, so now there is no excuse for humans to be religious.

Today there are only two types of people who are religious: Those who had their thinking mechanisms destroyed by being taught religion from an early age; and those who are congenitally stupid. Either way, the only way to stop religion is to prevent religiosity being taught to the young.

Do I accept science? Yes. But I can't say that religion is harmful. Is religion is a lie? No. Religion doesn't cause violence, man does. When I'm assaulted do you really think I lay there and wander what religion the assailants where? You say religion is a lie. No, that is a lies!

I accept science but I don't care about science. Cells evolve? Ok, I'll take sciences word for it. Ayres Rock is 80 million years old? That's great. I don't care. I failed science once, so I'm better off taking in what everyone else says. But I do not, and will not, buy into this nonsense that you so called intellectuals spout about Religion being violent and untrue!

You want to get rid of it by any means necessary, and when religious people object your type will claim they are troublemakers! Religion does not cause conflict, religion is just an idea. If you intellectually radical athiests had any education in wisdom you'd know that all responsibility of conflict does NOT lie on religion but lies instead on man's perversions of what man sees as his own realities.

Want to talk about athiesm? Then lets talk about atheism Iconoclast.

From my understanding it is based on the following principles and definitions:

"This is man's purpose for athiesm. To blame everyone but oneself for one's own perversion of reality."

"Atheism is a belief in a non-belief. A religion in anti-religion. There is no science in atheism, never has been."

"Atheism claims to be backed up by science. In reality, science doesn't have any claim on atheism. Nothing in science dictates one must be an atheist. If it did, we would still be in the stone age when everyone believed in zeus because atheists wouldn;t exist to conduct science and research."

"The abrahamic religions say a single god created the universe. Athiesm says everything happened through sheer luck."

"Since atheism is a rejection of a creation, therefore a rejection of a beginning, then atheism is the belief that time has gone on for infinity. If time has been going on for an infinite amount of time ago, how did we reach this point in time?"

Want more? I got 30 pages of notes on atheism.

**Noddy** · 08-12-2008, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Chessic-Adventures

"Atheism is a belief in a non-belief. A religion in anti-religion. There is no science in atheism, never has been."

I disgaree. Atheism is the absence of theism. Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.

**Iconoclast** · 08-12-2008, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

I don't think this is really fair. There are plenty of intelligent Religious people.

I don't agree. Go into any university and take a poll of its professors. THere are almost none who believe in God.

Furthermore, In some circumstances, Religion may offer more to young people then science.

Silly argument. I could also make the argument that crystal meth offers some young people more than religion does.

There is nothing, NOTHING! religion can offer that cannot be offered by science and of a better quality. I challenge you to name one political/psychological/sociological/"spiritual" question that religion offers more certain answers than science can/does.

08-08-2008, 04:26 PM	#1 (permalink)
Gumshoe Mystery Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 141	Teaching Religion at School Im an atheist however I am in favour of teaching religion in school. I was taught religion in school but religious education was learning about all religions though it was treated as about of a small study in each. I am not in favour of religion in the science class but religion is relevant in the world and its important to be able to view people through the lens of what they believe. __________________ Student Retreat \| Web Hosting from £1.95 a Month

08-09-2008, 01:31 PM	#2 (permalink)
Fischer-Fan Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth Posts: 147	i was taught religion in school but it was a parochial school. i am not in favor of religion in public schools. for those who wish their children to be indoctrinated into a particular religion, there are private schools. Even though not all are accessible to everyone because some are to expensive, many offer discounted tuition rates, a sliding scale or even free tuition for parishioners sometimes. __________________ Patzer see check, patzer give check! - Bobby Fischer

08-09-2008, 08:54 PM	#3 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 1,006	Yes, teach religion, don't inculcate religiosity. Furthermore, religion should be a topic in both Society and Culture, and Science. S&C could look at its influences upon us, past present and future. Science could look at it as a example of what anti-science is. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

08-10-2008, 01:08 PM	#4 (permalink)
Noddy Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 134	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Yes, teach religion, don't inculcate religiosity. Furthermore, religion should be a topic in both Society and Culture, and Science. S&C could look at its influences upon us, past present and future. Science could look at it as a example of what anti-science is. Teaching about religion is very different from teaching religion in school. Typically the study of religion is a matter of history and philosophy and it is why fudamentalist religious types often get frustrated in university classes about religion since those classes are more about secular interest in it than recruiting others to believe. So I agree that in part of the human history of belief, religion is worthy of study as long as all other major belief systems are compared in detail, from shamanistic mysticisms through buddhism. However, given the scope of historical detail and philosophic depth of the world's religions, it is unlikely to get any decent treatment at a grade school level. High schools might be able to pull it off better but civic histories and other basic studies take up so much curriculum space it is hard to imagine how it could be squeezed in except as an elective. So as a separate study religion is probably better left to history classes and theologic studies at a university level.

08-10-2008, 10:21 PM	#6 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Playing backyard cricket Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: somewhere in virtual reality Posts: 605	Hi, Doesn't the question depend on what sort of school the child is enrolled in? cheers Fg7 __________________ "...A thorough knowledge of the elements takes us more than half the road to mastership" - Aron Nimzowitsch

08-10-2008, 03:03 PM	#5 (permalink)
Chessic-Adventures Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 204	I wouldn't mind seeing a comparative religions class taught, so long as it was done strictly from a secular perspective. Teach the facts about religions, teach how they are similar and how they are different. Do not teach that any of them are true. However, I have no confidence whatsoever that any school, and especially private schools, could actually do this sufficiently. Therefore it is probably a good idea not to do it at all.

08-10-2008, 11:37 PM	#7 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 1,006	Originally Posted by Thomas Bishop However, given the scope of historical detail and philosophic depth of the world's religions, Religion has NO philosophical depth. Religous philosophy is an oxymoron. So as a separate study religion is probably better left to history classes and theologic studies at a university level. If only matters theological were rightly left until university, we would not have infected the minds of children with the tosh in the first place. Teaching a religion to children is like teaching them, Ninja death holds, oral sex and where to buy crystal meth - wholly WRONG!. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

08-11-2008, 01:42 PM	#8 (permalink)
YumYum Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 112	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Hi, Doesn't the question depend on what sort of school the child is enrolled in? cheers Fg7 Teaching religion in school is a great idea! I'm in favor of teaching religion in schools as long as it is put on part with teaching similar fantasy like mythology, superstition, supernatural and paranormal stuff. Here are some possible lessons Non-Science : Myths and Superstitions 1. Science vs Non-science - What Defines Them 2. History of Religion and Mythology 3. Present-Day Religions and Superstitions 4. The Psychology of Believing in Non-science 5. Non-Science in Cults, Politics, and Money-Making Schemes __________________ Panda is what the world was waiting for!

08-11-2008, 06:44 PM	#9 (permalink)
Noddy Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 134	Many people are confused about what religion is and how it fits in to the scheme of things. Right now it is mostly ignored in schools. It would be far more educational to learn what religion is in the context of all other sciences. So many people are confused about it precisely because it's omitted. Asking why it's omitted is like taboo. Non-science is the important distinction because everything else in school is a study of something real or dervied from reality. Why do we study Mathematics, History, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, English and not religion? Isn't that an important question to answer in either government, social studies, or some introductory general science class? Science = knowledge. Knowledge is divided into categories, knowledge about events of the past history, knowledge about logic and it's relationship math, knowledge about living organisims - biology, knowledge about the fundamental workings of the universe - physics. Religion is absent because it's not knowledge about anything real, and yet it's so prevelant in our societies. Why is certainly a good question.

08-11-2008, 09:31 PM	#10 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 1,006	Originally Posted by YumYum 4. The Psychology of Believing in Non-science Last year I read "Breaking The Spell" - Daniel Dennett. It is worth the read. Looks at how religion is - possibly - inevitable. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

08-11-2008, 09:45 PM	#11 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 1,006	Originally Posted by Thomas Bishop It would be far more educational to learn what religion is in the context of all other sciences. I hope you are not suggesting that religion is a science. Religion is absent because it's not knowledge about anything real, and yet it's so prevelant in our societies. Why is certainly a good question. It is prevelent because stupid people continue to be born. In the past, nearly everyone was a believer because there was no other system of thought to challenge it. Now there is science, so now there is no excuse for humans to be religious. Today there are only two types of people who are religious: Those who had their thinking mechanisms destroyed by being taught religion from an early age; and those who are congenitally stupid. Either way, the only way to stop religion is to prevent religiosity being taught to the young. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

08-12-2008, 01:13 AM	#12 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Playing backyard cricket Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: somewhere in virtual reality Posts: 605	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Today there are only two types of people who are religious: Those who had their thinking mechanisms destroyed by being taught religion from an early age; and those who are congenitally stupid. Either way, the only way to stop religion is to prevent religiosity being taught to the young. I don't think this is really fair. There are plenty of intelligent Religious people. Furthermore, In some circumstances, Religion may offer more to young people then science. cheers Fg7 __________________ "...A thorough knowledge of the elements takes us more than half the road to mastership" - Aron Nimzowitsch

08-12-2008, 12:41 PM	#13 (permalink)
Chessic-Adventures Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 204	Originally Posted by Iconoclast I hope you are not suggesting that religion is a science. It is prevelent because stupid people continue to be born. In the past, nearly everyone was a believer because there was no other system of thought to challenge it. Now there is science, so now there is no excuse for humans to be religious. Today there are only two types of people who are religious: Those who had their thinking mechanisms destroyed by being taught religion from an early age; and those who are congenitally stupid. Either way, the only way to stop religion is to prevent religiosity being taught to the young. Do I accept science? Yes. But I can't say that religion is harmful. Is religion is a lie? No. Religion doesn't cause violence, man does. When I'm assaulted do you really think I lay there and wander what religion the assailants where? You say religion is a lie. No, that is a lies! I accept science but I don't care about science. Cells evolve? Ok, I'll take sciences word for it. Ayres Rock is 80 million years old? That's great. I don't care. I failed science once, so I'm better off taking in what everyone else says. But I do not, and will not, buy into this nonsense that you so called intellectuals spout about Religion being violent and untrue! You want to get rid of it by any means necessary, and when religious people object your type will claim they are troublemakers! Religion does not cause conflict, religion is just an idea. If you intellectually radical athiests had any education in wisdom you'd know that all responsibility of conflict does NOT lie on religion but lies instead on man's perversions of what man sees as his own realities. Want to talk about athiesm? Then lets talk about atheism Iconoclast. From my understanding it is based on the following principles and definitions: "This is man's purpose for athiesm. To blame everyone but oneself for one's own perversion of reality." "Atheism is a belief in a non-belief. A religion in anti-religion. There is no science in atheism, never has been." "Atheism claims to be backed up by science. In reality, science doesn't have any claim on atheism. Nothing in science dictates one must be an atheist. If it did, we would still be in the stone age when everyone believed in zeus because atheists wouldn;t exist to conduct science and research." "The abrahamic religions say a single god created the universe. Athiesm says everything happened through sheer luck." "Since atheism is a rejection of a creation, therefore a rejection of a beginning, then atheism is the belief that time has gone on for infinity. If time has been going on for an infinite amount of time ago, how did we reach this point in time?" Want more? I got 30 pages of notes on atheism.

08-12-2008, 02:42 PM	#14 (permalink)
Noddy Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 134	Originally Posted by Chessic-Adventures "Atheism is a belief in a non-belief. A religion in anti-religion. There is no science in atheism, never has been." I disgaree. Atheism is the absence of theism. Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.

08-12-2008, 10:43 PM	#15 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 1,006	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 I don't think this is really fair. There are plenty of intelligent Religious people. I don't agree. Go into any university and take a poll of its professors. THere are almost none who believe in God. Furthermore, In some circumstances, Religion may offer more to young people then science. Silly argument. I could also make the argument that crystal meth offers some young people more than religion does. There is nothing, NOTHING! religion can offer that cannot be offered by science and of a better quality. I challenge you to name one political/psychological/sociological/"spiritual" question that religion offers more certain answers than science can/does. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: