Richard Dawkins 'Faith School Menace' More4 Tonight

zimovain

At 9pm.

I come in peace, just posting this in case you want to watch and agree/disagree with it.

Richard will be presenting Faith School Menace? on More4 on Wednesday 18 August at 9PM. It will be available on 4od shortly after.

Programme Synopsis
The number of faith schools in Britain is rising. Around 7,000 publicly-funded schools - one in three - now has a religious affiliation.


As the coalition government paves the way for more faith-based education by promoting 'free schools', the renowned atheist and evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins says enough is enough.
In this passionately argued film, Dawkins calls on us to reconsider the consequences of faith education, which, he argues, bamboozles parents and indoctrinates and divides children.


The film features robust exchanges with former Secretary of State for Education Charles Clarke, Head of the Church of England Education Service Reverend Janina Ainsworth, and the Chair of the Association of Muslim Schools, Dr Mohammed Mukadam.


It also features insights from child psychologists and key players in faith education as well as insights from both parents and pupils.
Dawkins also draws on his own personal history as a father, arguing that the government must stop funding new faith schools, and urges society to respect a child's right to freedom of belief.

Turtwig

Dawkins drawing on his personal history sounds like a mistake to me, unless it is going against his actual argument he is effectively admitting his past experiences could be subjecting him to a form of bias.

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

Dawkins drawing on his personal history sounds like a mistake to me, unless it is going against his actual argument he is effectively admitting his past experiences could be subjecting him to a form of bias.

Dawkins, biased? :eek:

JimiTime

Appreciate the heads up zimovain.

Ush1

Malty_T wrote: »

Dawkins drawing on his personal history sounds like a mistake to me, unless it is going against his actual argument he is effectively admitting his past experiences could be subjecting him to a form of bias.

Of course he is biased, I think there is no question he has a problem with mass, organised religion.

What's wrong with drawing on his personal experience?

Zombrex

Ush1 wrote: »

Of course he is biased, I think there is no question he has a problem with mass, organised religion.

What's wrong with drawing on his personal experience?

It can bias you.

Bias is when you use your own subjective opinion to select data and evidence that supports pre-conceived ideas and disregard data and evidence that doesn't.

For example I'm riding a bike and fall and hurt my knee. This gives me a poor view towards bikes which may cause me to accept data or evidence that says bikes are dangerous and ignore or dismiss evidence or data that says that bikes are safe.

If Dawkins' personal experience has given him a distaste for indoctrination in religious schools then he needs to be careful that this distaste does not bias his selection of data and evidence to support a wider argument about the damages of such institutions.

Ush1

Wicknight wrote: »

It can bias you.

Bias is when you use your own subjective opinion to select data and evidence that supports pre-conceived ideas and disregard data and evidence that doesn't.

For example I'm riding a bike and fall and hurt my knee. This gives me a poor view towards bikes which may cause me to accept data or evidence that says bikes are dangerous and ignore or dismiss evidence or data that says that bikes are safe.

If Dawkins' personal experience has given him a distaste for indoctrination in religious schools then he needs to be careful that this distaste does not bias his selection of data and evidence to support a wider argument about the damages of such institutions.

Erm, I know what bias means.

I re iterate, of course he is biased. He is not making this show to support such type of schools.

As far as your example of bias it's fairly irrelevant. Most people in the world would have some contact and thoughts with religion and have there own ideas about it.

The wider arguement? Such as these schools being funded by the state and not teaching evolution? I think that's about as big as the picture gets realistically, depriving children of a real education.

raah!

It's on the tv right now. I like the emotive music, and scenes with dawkins frowning off into the distance. I also like the way he was trying to have a discussion with some fellow but just kept cutting in when he tried to say anything, and then shortly afterwards launches into criticisms of his "lack of enthusiasm".

lmaopml

I missed it because of football, and the other half..(''.)

I was wondering when it will go online? and if anybody notices could they update the thread with a link? I'll check the site in the op after work tomorrow myself to see...Cheers!

Was it any good?

Zombrex

Ush1 wrote: »

Erm, I know what bias means.

I re iterate, of course he is biased. He is not making this show to support such type of schools.

As far as your example of bias it's fairly irrelevant. Most people in the world would have some contact and thoughts with religion and have there own ideas about it.

The wider arguement? Such as these schools being funded by the state and not teaching evolution? I think that's about as big as the picture gets realistically, depriving children of a real education.

No, a wider picture that religious schools are damaging for reasons other than Dawkins doesn't like them.

It is perfectly possible to be against religious schools without being bias.

Ush1

Wicknight wrote: »

No, a wider picture that religious schools are damaging for reasons other than Dawkins doesn't like them.

It is perfectly possible to be against religious schools without being bias.

That's what I said, not giving a real education.

Who doesn't have some form of bias with regards something as universal as religion?

I'd imagine the young boys who were raped are against it, right down the kids who find mass on Sunday boring. Everyone will have some preconceptions.

MagicMarker

Well I don't think Dawkin's was bias in the slightest at the end of the day.

Strange that no one seems to have anything to say about it on this forum?

philologos

It was an interesting piece of telly for a Wednesday night, but ultimately his argument was flawed by really only giving fringe cases the most coverage. Some of the people he interviewed, particularly the CofE education secretary actually took a really reasonable approach about how to operate a faith schools. I.E - To share what Christianity is like, and allow for people to go away and think about it for themselves later.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

the CofE education secretary actually took a really reasonable approach about how to operate a faith schools. I.E - To share what Christianity is like, and allow for people to go away and think about it for themselves later.

I think you're giving too much credit to 5 year olds.

Why can't we teach them about all religions equally, subjectively and without bias?

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

I think you're giving too much credit to 5 year olds.

Why can't we teach them about all religions equally, subjectively and without bias?

Parents should have the right to bring their child to a school that teaches about their faiths values, or indeed a secular school. It is about the choices that parents should have in determining what is best for their child.

I have no issue with people campaigning for secular schools, and broader choice.

I have major issues with people who 1) are looking to make decisions for other peoples children, and 2) are looking to limit such choice for others.

I sympathise with people who have difficulties finding a secular school, but such sympathy is well and truly gone like the wind when people make the aforementioned argument of removing State funding for faith schools.

Webbs

Jakkass wrote: »

Parents should have the right to bring their child to a school that teaches about their faiths values, or indeed a secular school. It is about the choices that parents should have in determining what is best for their child.

I

Surely that was the point Dawkins was making, that it should not be the parents faith views that are forced on their children. More that it should be a decision that the child makes for themselves when they have received a balanced education, which you do not get in a faith school

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

Parents should have the right to bring their child to a school that teaches about their faiths values, or indeed a secular school. It is about the choices that parents should have in determining what is best for their child.

I have no issue with people campaigning for secular schools, and broader choice.

I have major issues with people who 1) are looking to make decisions for other peoples children, and 2) are looking to limit such choice for others.

I sympathise with people who have difficulties finding a secular school, but such sympathy is well and truly gone like the wind when people make the aforementioned argument of removing State funding for faith schools.

So you agree with what you saw in that Islamic school? You see nothing wrong with that at all?

philologos

Webbs wrote: »

Surely that was the point Dawkins was making, that it should not be the parents faith views that are forced on their children. More that it should be a decision that the child makes for themselves when they have received a balanced education, which you do not get in a faith school

I don't see it as being forced, and it's clear that neither do the CofE in particular in their approach. Their argument tends to lean towards giving children an experience of Christianity and what it is like, and allowing for them to make an informed decision either to keep, or abandon the faith of their parents, and what they had learned at school.

I think that this is a reasonable approach, and I think all parents should be at liberty to provide faith education for their child based on their own values.

My sympathy ends when atheists and agnostics stop being concerned about their own rights, but start to be concerned about others.

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

So you agree with what you saw in that Islamic school? You see nothing wrong with that at all?

This is what I mean when I said that the documentary mostly focused on fringe cases. These cases are by no means typical of faith schools.

In such a case Ofsted should be monitoring and assessing the science class, to ensure that RE material is kept separate, and taught only in RE time.

If you want to know my fuller thoughts, I've written a blog post on what I thought on the documentary in sum total.

antiskeptic

Webbs wrote: »

Surely that was the point Dawkins was making, that it should not be the parents faith views that are forced on their children. More that it should be a decision that the child makes for themselves when they have received a balanced education, which you do not get in a faith school

Hmm. I'd view an education without Christianity as unbalanced. How to decide on balance?

SleepDoc

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hmm. I'd view an education without Christianity as unbalanced. How to decide on balance?

An education without the history of Christianity would be unbalanced. An education expounding a belief in the unprovable and unlikely is unbalanced.

philologos

SleepDoc wrote: »

An education without the history of Christianity would be unbalanced. An education expounding a belief in the unprovable and unlikely is unbalanced.

This depends on what one considers unlikely. Is that a subjective or objective notion?

SleepDoc

Jakkass wrote: »

This depends on what one considers unlikely. Is that a subjective or objective notion?

Objective. Objectively there is no evidence of any god any more than there is evidence of fairies, santa claus or zombies. I object to tax being used to promote nonsense.

philologos

SleepDoc wrote: »

Objective. Objectively there is no evidence of any god any more than there is evidence of fairies, santa claus or zombies. I object to tax being used to promote nonsense.

Many Christians would disagree with you, and would argue that there is evidence to support the truth and veracity of the Scriptures.

As for the tax situation. It's rather simple. If people of faith, and people of no faith live in society together, then the tax money should be used to support the role of both in society. There is no reason why the State cannot given the tax money that we spend, provide a choice in terms of education for parents.

Atheists and agnostics aren't the only people who pay tax, if they were, I'd agree with you. Ultimately however, the State is a State for all, believer and non-believer alike.

I object to my taxes being used in numerous areas, but ultimately it is something that I have to accept.

Manach

That the government would listen to you or I on how to spend taxpayer money on any project, that I find completely nonsensical.

Fanny Cradock

SleepDoc wrote: »

Objective. Objectively there is no evidence of any god any more than there is evidence of fairies, santa claus or zombies. I object to tax being used to promote nonsense.

Why does this opinion keep arising on this forum? There is evidence, you just a priori poo-poo it. And what, pray tell, has unlikeness got to do with truth?

MagicMarker

There is NO evidence, otherwise we would teach Religion in Science class.

SleepDoc

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why does this opinion keep arising on this forum? There is evidence, you just a priori poo-poo it. And what, pray tell, has unlikeness got to do with truth?

I'm not poo-poo ing anything. Show me the evidence. Just because we don't understand something (yet) does'nt mean there's a sky fairy behind it.

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

There is NO evidence, otherwise we would teach Religion in Science class.

Ah dear! You do realise that there are differing forms of knowledge, different faculties and so on. There is also a reason why we don't teach politics in science class.

Ush1

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why does this opinion keep arising on this forum? There is evidence, you just a priori poo-poo it. And what, pray tell, has unlikeness got to do with truth?

What evidence?

Fanny Cradock

MagicMarker wrote: »

There is NO evidence, otherwise we would teach Religion in Science class.

Why would they teach any religion in a science class? One deals with theological and ethical matters, the other is limited to describing the natural world.

Zombrex

Ush1 wrote: »

What evidence?

Anything can be considered evidence, so the question is a bit pointless.

Evidence is purely in the eye of the beholder. The crazy guy up the road has evidence that aliens are stealing his thoughts.

The question is not whether evidence exists, it is whether the evidence is any good or not.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why would they teach any religion in a science class? One deals with theological and ethical matters, the other is limited to describing the natural world.

Because religion makes proclamations about the nature of the natural world.

It is not taught in science class because it can't back any of them up to any standard that would be acceptable in science, not because it doesn't do this.

Ush1

Wicknight wrote: »

Anything can be considered evidence, so the question is a bit pointless.

Evidence is purely in the eye of the beholder. The crazy guy up the road has evidence that aliens are stealing his thoughts.

The question is not whether evidence exists, it is whether the evidence is any good or not.

Does he? What sort of evidence is it?

How do you mean "anything" can be considered evidence?

MagicMarker

Ush1 wrote: »

Does he? What sort of evidence is it?

How do you mean "anything" can be considered evidence?

Anything can be considered evidence if you have enough 'faith'.

Ush1

MagicMarker wrote: »

Anything can be considered evidence if you have enough 'faith'.

Believing you have evidence, is not the same as having evidence.

Fanny Cradock

SleepDoc wrote: »

Just because we don't understand something (yet) does'nt mean there's a sky fairy behind it.

Please stop using pejorative terminology.

Zombrex

Ush1 wrote: »

Does he? What sort of evidence is it?

Bad evidence (by the standards you and I would use), but he can still claim it is evidence. Sure didn't the aliens appear before him. Doesn't he hear voices in his head. Didn't the last woman who gave him money have snake eyes etc etc

Saying You have no evidence to him would be pointless. He can list off the evidence he has. The question isn't if he has evidence, it is if he has good evidence, evidence that matches a particular standard.

Ush1 wrote: »

How do you mean "anything" can be considered evidence?

Anything can be considered evidence. Evidence is just something that someone uses to support a position. Everyone thinks their position, no matter how nuts, is supported by something. No one believes something for absolutely no reason.

Bduffman

Jakkass wrote: »

I sympathise with people who have difficulties finding a secular school, but such sympathy is well and truly gone like the wind when people make the aforementioned argument of removing State funding for faith schools.

So the state should fund all state schools? For every faith? Where does it stop? Do we fund Scientology schools?
Why stop there - why don't we fund astrology classes for children of astrologers?

The fact is we can only educate children on facts not on the opinions of their parents.

Bduffman

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the tax situation. It's rather simple. If people of faith, and people of no faith live in society together, then the tax money should be used to support the role of both in society. There is no reason why the State cannot given the tax money that we spend, provide a choice in terms of education for parents.

Atheists and agnostics aren't the only people who pay tax, if they were, I'd agree with you. Ultimately however, the State is a State for all, believer and non-believer alike.

I object to my taxes being used in numerous areas, but ultimately it is something that I have to accept.

But what about the most powerful statistic in last nights documentary? That a country that has 7% churchgoers, has over 30% faith schools - most of which are state funded. Thats not a fair distribution of tax.

philologos

Bduffman wrote: »

So the state should fund all state schools? For every faith? Where does it stop? Do we fund Scientology schools?
Why stop there - why don't we fund astrology classes for children of astrologers?

Where there is sufficient demand.

I am not a Muslim, but I think Muslims should be at the liberty to set up Islamic schools where there is demand. Jews should be at liberty to set up Jewish schools where there is demand. Likewise in the case of other faiths.

Bduffman wrote: »

The fact is we can only educate children on facts not on the opinions of their parents.

People can be brought to schools which teach Christian values through their ethos, likewise Islamic, or Jewish schools as far as I know. I have no doubt that other faiths will seek to set up in due course, and I have no doubt that secular schools will become more of a reality too.

The only criterion I would set is that the schools must follow the State curriculum in order to receive State funding. If you wish to teach a different curriculum, feel free to set up but without State funding.

Bduffman wrote: »

But what about the most powerful statistic in last nights documentary? That a country that has 7% churchgoers, has over 30% faith schools - most of which are state funded. Thats not a fair distribution of tax.

Irrespective of going to church or not, apparently a lot of people still want to send their children to faith schools. A few years ago in the Guardian there was an article about an atheist who sent her child to a Jewish school because she felt that it would be best for him and so on.
N.B - 30% also includes schools of other faiths, not just of Christianity. One would need to see mosque, gudwara, synagogue attendance as well.

Clearly the demand warrants the schools, irrespective of whether people go to church, synagogue or mosque on a regular basis.

Fanny Cradock

Bduffman wrote: »

But what about the most powerful statistic in last nights documentary? That a country that has 7% churchgoers, has over 30% faith schools - most of which are state funded. Thats not a fair distribution of tax.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

7% appears to be on the lower end of figures I've seen. Was this relating to adults, children or both?

When Tearfund conducted a survey back in '07 they found that 10% of the UK adult population attend a Christian church weekly, 15% attend at least monthly (7.6 million people), 3% (1.6 m) at least 6 times a year and 7% (3.4 m) at least once a year. 53% of the population of still considered itself Christian.

Was it made clear exactly what churchgoing means? For example, is it somebody who attends church every week, every month, every 6 months? I suggest that one could be a Christian and not attend church or perhaps attends a home group instead. I'm also curious what relevance churchgoing (and I hope that we can clear up if the 7% figure relates to adults, children or both) has to do with faith schools? I would have thought that supply and demand is an important factor in the 30% figure given.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

The only criterion I would set is that the schools must follow the State curriculum in order to receive State funding. If you wish to teach a different curriculum, feel free to set up but without State funding.

Should parents be able to send their children to schools that do not follow State curriculum?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Should parents be able to send their children to schools that do not follow State curriculum?

They can, and as far as I know they already do. International Schools exist in this country which teach the European Baccalaureate instead of the Junior or Leaving Cert. I'm also fairly sure that all of these schools are fee paying, as a result of not teaching the State curriculum.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

They can, and as far as I know they already do. International Schools exist in this country which teach the European Baccalaureate instead of the Junior or Leaving Cert. I'm also fairly sure that all of these schools are fee paying, as a result of not teaching the State curriculum.

Should they be allowed to though? If I want to send my kid to a school where he is taught nothing but Tom Cruise's Guide to Psychology instead of maths and english should I be allowed to.

amacachi

Wicknight wrote: »

Should they be allowed to though? If I want to send my kid to a school where he is taught nothing but Tom Cruise's Guide to Psychology instead of maths and english should I be allowed to.

I'm against Faith Schools but yes, maybe you should be allowed, however the government shouldn't be paying for it.

MagicMarker

Wicknight wrote: »

Should they be allowed to though? If I want to send my kid to a school where he is taught nothing but Tom Cruise's Guide to Psychology instead of maths and english should I be allowed to.

Of course you should. As a parent it's your right to choose what kind of education your children are exposed to!

:rolleyes:

philologos

amacachi wrote: »

I'm against Faith Schools but yes, maybe you should be allowed, however the government shouldn't be paying for it.

You're still ignoring that the vast majority of taxation comes from believers in Ireland at present. If it all came from atheists then I'd understand your position completely. Otherwise the education system should allow for choice for believers as well as atheists and agnostics to educate either in the faith of their parents or in an entirely secular school.

However, since it doesn't. Lines need to be drawn. Those lines would seem to suggest to me that you look out for the education of your own children, and let other people decide how best to educate theirs.

Or in short, atheists and agnostics should look out for their own rights rather than seeking to deprive others of theirs.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

Or in short, atheists and agnostics should look out for their own rights rather than seeking to deprive others of theirs.

What rights are we depriving? The right to freedom of choice? The right to be educated fairly?

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

What rights are we depriving? The right to freedom of choice? The right to be educated fairly?

You'd be seeking to deprive both. Faith schools benefit a lot of students as well.

Our society is one where there are a number of different faiths, and people of no faith. Our education system should reflect that.

Zombrex

amacachi wrote: »

I'm against Faith Schools but yes, maybe you should be allowed, however the government shouldn't be paying for it.

Does the State not though have an obligation to the child himself/herself, to provide them with a proper education?