Should religion be taught in schools?

Tehachapi

I have a big problem with this, and believe it is destroying childrens minds early on in life. Just today I am reading in the newspaper we have a huge shortage of science/maths/technology skilled people in this country. Here's my theory of 1 of the reasons why:

Does this start in childhood? I went to a catholic school and was taught all the christian bullsh1t, for example - you can't tell children in 1 class "Jesus walked on water" then in the next class teach them the scientific properties of water and expect them to understand it properly. Or that "Jesus turned a small amount of loaves/fishes into enough to feed thousands", then expect them not to be confused when being taught food science. One more example (I could list many more) , is resurrection. You can't teach children that magical resurrection after being dead for 3 days is possible, then expect them to properly understand biology. God putting man on earth, then expecting them to understand genetics, evolution, cells, etc.

Some will argue "oh those stories are just symbolic" - that is bullsh1t. There is no reference card indicating which parts of the bible are to be interpreted as fact, and which as symbolic. Why not just stamp it out altogether, stick to the facts and let them decide on a faith when they are adults , if they want to instead of it being rammed down their throats. These are young, innocent, highly impressionable children. Others will argue that they should be taught about all faiths like is being done for junior cert religion now, but again I find this nonsensical. If I make up a religion tomorrow, praising leprechaun ghosts- should that be taught about too? Where do you draw the line?

philologos

Here we go again :pac:

Crow92

I think religion should be taught in school, world religion, informative information on the beliefs of all the major religions of the world, not focusing on raising you as a catholic but teaching you above all different religions.

Tehachapi

Tehachapi wrote: »

Rabble rabble rabble

Go away.

Tehachapi

Crow92 wrote: »

I think religion should be taught in school, world religion, informative information on the beliefs of all the major religions of the world, not focusing on raising you as a catholic but teaching you above all different religions.

Why? Why not use that time/resources to teach them something beneficial to society like biology or physics? Should my leprechaun ghost religion be included on that course also?

Sykk

...

Crow92

Tehachapi wrote: »

Why? Why not use that time/resources to teach them something beneficial to society like biology or physics? Should my leprechaun ghost religion be included on that course also?

Whats not usefull about not being ignorant to what others believe?
Integrated society?

Naikon

No.

Sykk

Tehachapi wrote: »

I have a big problem with this, and believe it is destroying childrens minds early on in life. Just today I am reading in the newspaper we have a huge shortage of science/maths/technology skilled people in this country. Here's my theory of 1 of the reasons why:

Does this start in childhood? I went to a catholic school and was taught all the christian bullsh1t, for example - you can't tell children in 1 class "Jesus walked on water" then in the next class teach them the scientific properties of water and expect them to understand it properly. Or that "Jesus turned a small amount of loaves/fishes into enough to feed thousands", then expect them not to be confused when being taught food science. One more example (I could list many more) , is resurrection. You can't teach children that magical resurrection after being dead for 3 days is possible, then expect them to properly understand biology. God putting man on earth, then expecting them to understand genetics, evolution, cells, etc.

Some will argue "oh those stories are just symbolic" - that is bullsh1t. There is no reference card indicating which parts of the bible are to be interpreted as fact, and which as symbolic. Why not just stamp it out altogether, stick to the facts and let them decide on a faith when they are adults , if they want to instead of it being rammed down their throats. These are young, innocent, highly impressionable children. Others will argue that they should be taught about all faiths like is being done for junior cert religion now, but again I find this nonsensical. If I make up a religion tomorrow, praising leprechaun ghosts- should that be taught about too? Where do you draw the line?

Your theory is fail. Don't blame catholicism for your poor career choice. This isn't the 1800's

Aldebaran

Sykk wrote: »

...

...

Tehachapi

Sykk wrote: »

Your theory is fail. Don't blame catholicism for your poor career choice. This isn't the 1800's

What? I actually work in IT.

Seachmall

Should we learn about religion? Obviously.

Should we be taught which is the right one? No, that's for your parents to do.

Sykk wrote:

Don't blame catholicism for your poor career choice.

Tehachapi wrote:

I actually work in IT.

Point proven.


[I work in IT too, btw]

dpe

History of religion, yes (how religion has informed culture and human development is a valid subject). Religion as indoctrination, no.

philologos

Tehachapi wrote: »

I have a big problem with this, and believe it is destroying childrens minds early on in life. Just today I am reading in the newspaper we have a huge shortage of science/maths/technology skilled people in this country. Here's my theory of 1 of the reasons why:

OP: I'm a computer science graduate who will be starting a post as a software engineer at the end of August. I'm a Christian.

Your reason is bunk I'm afraid

Sweatynutsack

Religion is the very issue that has the world the way it is today !!
So no, if people/children want to learn about religion they should do it of their own accord imo

Tehachapi

dpe wrote: »

History of religion, yes (how religion has informed culture and human development is a valid subject). Religion as indoctrination, no.

That's an interesting point, is religion still taught as indoctrination in Ireland to primary school children?

mikemac

Teach basics and history of all religions.
The children can make up their own minds at a later age.

If the family want to take it further the local parish can run Sunday school or classes in the evenings.
Making communion and confirmation for a primary school child making them "soldiers of Christ" when they have no clue what that means is nothing but indoctrination

To be honest all religions are more or less the same
If we "did onto others as we would have them do unto us" the world would be a far better place.

AlmightyCushion

I learned all that religion stuff in school and I have a pretty good understanding of maths and science, same with a lot of my friends. I haven't pursued a career in that area though as I didn't want to not because religious teachings made me stupid.

Tehachapi

Seachmall wrote: »

Point proven.


[I work in IT too, btw]

How is it a poor career choice then? Because the shortage of people in the industry means we are more in demand? Maybe temporarily, but for the long term future of the career it is beneficial to have too many skilled people than too few.

wes

Tehachapi wrote: »

Here's my theory of 1 of the reasons why:

Interesting theory, but without any facts to back it up, its one that will be quickly rejected. There are many other possible reasons why we have a lack of qualified candidates in those area's, and I can think of several easily, which are just as valid as yours, seeing as both would have no proof. Without getting more information on why this has happened, we can't draw any reasonable conclusions, without more facts.

So, I reckon your your theory should be rejected due to lack of any facts, to link Religion classes to the lack of qualified candidates in the sciences.

dlofnep

No, unless it's a class which discusses religion, rather than promoting religion.

D1stant

No. Not before secondary anyway - and only as part of a sense of humour development programme

In Finland The primary kids do formal study from 9 until 13:00 then the afternoons are all sport and Physical Education. Thats a system I like.

Seachmall

Tehachapi wrote: »

Just today I am reading in the newspaper we have a huge shortage of science/maths/technology skilled people in this country. Here's my theory of 1 of the reasons why:

I'm an atheist however my uncle was a principal of a secondary school, has a doctorate in education and learning, played in European Chess Tournaments (and reach a final when he was 19), lectures in the Open University and has co-authored books on education used to teach teachers all around the world. He is the most devout Christian I know aside from my parish priest.

Contrary to popular opinion religious people aren't inevitably stupid.

My name is URL

If religion was any good it wouldn't need to be taught or indoctrinated into children. I don't think it should be a subject in school.. maybe teach about the history of theism or something like that instead.. or how about a class on critical thinking.

Tehachapi

philologos wrote: »

OP: I'm a computer science graduate who will be starting a post as a software engineer at the end of August. I'm a Christian.

Your reason is bunk I'm afraid

Because a single religious person works in the area of IT? The vast majority of my friends/colleagues working in the areas of IT/pharma/biology are non-religious. I think you'll find the same when you begin your career.

Seachmall

Tehachapi wrote: »

How is it a poor career choice then? Because the shortage of people in the industry means we are more in demand? Maybe temporarily, but for the long term future of the career it is beneficial to have too many skilled people than too few.

Twas a Joke :pac:

mikemac

Turn it off and turn it on again

That IT degree came in very useful on the helpdesk

Greentopia

Tehachapi wrote: »

I have a big problem with this, and believe it is destroying childrens minds early on in life. Just today I am reading in the newspaper we have a huge shortage of science/maths/technology skilled people in this country. Here's my theory of 1 of the reasons why:

Does this start in childhood? I went to a catholic school and was taught all the christian bullsh1t, for example - you can't tell children in 1 class "Jesus walked on water" then in the next class teach them the scientific properties of water and expect them to understand it properly. Or that "Jesus turned a small amount of loaves/fishes into enough to feed thousands", then expect them not to be confused when being taught food science. One more example (I could list many more) , is resurrection. You can't teach children that magical resurrection after being dead for 3 days is possible, then expect them to properly understand biology. God putting man on earth, then expecting them to understand genetics, evolution, cells, etc.

Some will argue "oh those stories are just symbolic" - that is bullsh1t. There is no reference card indicating which parts of the bible are to be interpreted as fact, and which as symbolic. Why not just stamp it out altogether, stick to the facts and let them decide on a faith when they are adults , if they want to instead of it being rammed down their throats. These are young, innocent, highly impressionable children. Others will argue that they should be taught about all faiths like is being done for junior cert religion now, but again I find this nonsensical. If I make up a religion tomorrow, praising leprechaun ghosts- should that be taught about too? Where do you draw the line?

Yes.
:pac:

Oh sorry, you wanted a real answer??

Comparative religion class where all main world religions are taught along with critical thinking skills, yes.
One religion taught for indoctrination purposes and to the exclusion of all others, no.

NEXT!!

Naikon

Lads - if god talks to me, I need help. If I talk to god, i'm A OK:cool:

Tehachapi

Seachmall wrote: »

Contrary to popular opinion religious people aren't inevitably stupid.

That's not the point I'm trying to make, obviously there will be some religious people who are quite successful in their career and life - such as your uncle. I'm talking more about the long-term damage of teaching hundreds of millions of children stuff that is clearly false (resurrection, walking on water, creationism, etc) and confuses their minds.

mikemac

Greentopia wrote: »

Comparative religion class where all main world religions are taught, yes.
One religion taught for indoctrination purposes and to the exclusion of all others, no.

+1
Are there schools in Ireland which do this?

philologos

Tehachapi wrote: »

Because a single religious person works in the area of IT? The vast majority of my friends/colleagues working in the areas of IT/pharma/biology are non-religious. I think you'll find the same when you begin your career.

I know a good number of Christians involved in IT / Software Development and indeed in scientific research.

Indeed, there are plenty all over the world in natural science.

Your argument doesn't even go far enough to get to the point correlation does not equal causation.

You've just assumed that RE class is the reason why school finishers don't want to study the natural sciences / IT. Why? No reason apart from a dislike of religious beliefs.

Tehachapi

philologos wrote: »

I know a good number of Christians involved in IT / Software Development and indeed in scientific research.

Indeed, there are plenty all over the world in natural science.

Your argument doesn't even go far enough to get to the point correlation does not equal causation.

You've just assumed that RE class is the reason why school finishers don't want to study the natural sciences / IT. Why? No reason apart from a dislike of religious beliefs.

No, I am arguing what is the point of filling their minds with rubbish at a point when their brains are like a sponge - absorbing every piece of information and also at a time when they are still trying to make sense of the workings of the world.

Just for the record, do you think it is correct to teach 5, 6 and 7 year old children that a man can walk on water? That a man was magically resurrected from the dead after being crucified? And that the world is only 6000 years old and evolution is nonsense? Please answer this point before arguing with me any further.

These aren't adults like us who can easily dismiss this stuff as nonsense.

Seachmall

Tehachapi wrote: »

That's not the point I'm trying to make, obviously there will be some religious people who are quite successful in their career and life - such as your uncle. I'm talking more about the long-term damage of teaching hundreds of millions of children stuff that is clearly false (resurrection, walking on water, creationism, etc) and confuses their minds.

I think most people would agree, priests included, that religion is something that should be taught at home and in church. Religious Studies should be taught in school because they're a huge factor in society.

I also think Critical Thinking classes should be provided, as mentioned earlier.

Greentopia

mikemac wrote: »

+1
Are there schools in Ireland which do this?

Don't know tbh, have no kids in schools. I'd say the nearest is the multi-denominational Educate Together schools although they're only Primary schools at the moment.

Naikon

Religion is a disease on modern society.

philologos

Tehachapi wrote: »

No, I am arguing what is the point of filling their minds with rubbish at a point when their brains are like a sponge - absorbing every piece of information and also at a time when they are still trying to make sense of the workings of the world.

1. Why / how is it rubbish?
2. What does this have to do with the number of people taking science and IT at university?

Tehachapi wrote: »

Just for the record, do you think is correct to teach 5, 6 and 7 year old children that a man can walk on water? That a man was magically resurrected from the dead after being crucified? And that the world is only 6000 years old and evolution is nonsense? Please answer this point before arguing with me any further.

1. The idea of the miraculous should only be taught on the provisio that miracles aren't natural occurrences.
2. Denying evolution & scientifically given age of the universe - Mistaken even from a Christian POV in my view.

I've not even gotten into an argument with you. You've not even told me what is the connection between RE classes and a lack of people doing the sciences? I'm asking you to answer this.

Tehachapi wrote: »

These aren't adults like us who can easily dismiss this stuff as nonsense.

I believe that the Christian Gospel is the truth. I don't dismiss it as nonsense because I don't believe it to be nonsense.

Logical Fallacy

Tehachapi wrote: »

Why? Why not use that time/resources to teach them something beneficial to society like biology or physics? Should my leprechaun ghost religion be included on that course also?

School should also be about teaching kids HOW to think, study of theology and philosophy would be mandatory if LF ran the world.

I'd much rather equip kids with the ability to approach a subject and analyse it than simply dismiss it.

Teach kids about the different religions, their impacts, how those religions have tied in with assorted social, political and economic trends and you are off to a good start.

Mike 1972

Tehachapi wrote: »

Why? Why not use that time/resources to teach them something beneficial to society like biology or physics? Should my leprechaun ghost religion be included on that course also?

Because like it or not there is a lot of religion in the world and kids are going to know a bit about it so that they will be able to deal with it when they come up against it ?

Im all for a completly secularised school system but even under such a system there is still going to be a need to devote some time (albeit far less than present) to teach kids something about what people in different parts of the world (and their own communities) believe just as it is necessary to teach them a little bit about other cultures and wotnot.

D1stant

Feck. Can I change my vote.

Religion should be hammered into the little feckers from creche upwards

I still remember my communion prep in 1976 repeating in unison after the alcoholic priest "Oh Jesus.. oh Jesus... we believe in you.... we believe in you... we love you.... we love you..."

Ah time for a beer

Tehachapi

philologos wrote:

I know a good number of Christians involved in IT / Software Development and indeed in scientific research.

They are in the minority, believe me. The issue of intelligence and career success have been raised numerous times in this thread already - Have a read of this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

I won't quote the whole thing as it's long enough but here's some important points:

A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God - at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.

A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God

Professor Lynn said most primary school children believed in God, but as they entered adolescence - and their intelligence increased - many started to have doubts.


He told Times Higher Education magazine: "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."



He said religious belief had declined across 137 developed nations in the 20th century at the same time as people became more intelligent.

Logical Fallacy

You seem to be arguing from the point that religion can only be thought from the point of view of making people believe in it.

This is flawed.

Religion, whether you agree with it or not, has been a very important factor in human development and especially in the development of culture. Not studying it would simply be inviting ignorance...which i am sure you wouldn't agree with either.

dvpower

Poll is ambiguous - does it mean teaching about religion or indoctrination in a particular religion?

Of course teaching about religions is reasonable, but it shouldn't take nearly as much time as we currently spend with religious indoctrination, which shouldn't be done in the state funded school system.

philologos

Techachapi: Again, I'm going to ask you to answer the question.

How does RE class lead to people not studying the natural sciences or IT later on?

As for your stats here's some more.

Tehachapi

dvpower wrote: »

Poll is ambiguous - does it mean teaching about religion or indoctrination in a particular religion?

Of course teaching about religions is reasonable, but it shouldn't take nearly as much time as we currently spend with religious indoctrination, which shouldn't be done in the state funded school system.

I meant indoctrination of a particular religion, such as we have in Ireland with teaching (forcing) primary school children into catholicism. I would edit the poll to reflect this but there doesn't seem to be an option.

Paparazzo

I'd love to see the results of a poll asking the question "did you take religion class serious?".
It was a small step up from a free class in my school.

Tehachapi

philologos wrote: »

How does RE class lead to people not studying the natural sciences or IT later on?

I said at the start it was a theory I have which I would like to discuss. Now you can answer me this - how does it BENEFIT childrens understanding of biology/physics in any way by teaching them creationism, walking on water, miracles, etc. All it does is confuse them when learning about science. Confusion leads to anger and resentment towards the education system.

Obviously I can't prove this at the moment, just like I can't prove gravity. But it's the only theory that makes sense at the moment - I'm not willing to jump off a building to test it out.

philologos

Sure you have a theory, but how does it work? Where is the correlation?

wes

Tehachapi wrote: »

Obviously I can't prove this at the moment, just like I can't prove gravity. But it's the only theory that makes sense at the moment - I'm not willing to jump off a building to test it out.

You can prove the existence of gravity via experimentation, here is an example (I chose the kids one due the nature of the thread ):

Kids Science Experiments - Gravity

So yes you can provide proof of gravity. What you can't seem to provide any proof of is anything to back up your theory, and you refuse to do so. So can't see how any meaningful conversation can be had without it.

Personally, I think World Relgions or something to that effect should be taught in schools, and if people want to join a Religion, they can go to a Church/Gurdwara/Mosque or where ever else.

Tehachapi

philologos wrote: »

Sure you have a theory, but how does it work? Where is the correlation?

Are you selectively ignoring my posts?

Answer the question in bold :

I said at the start it was a theory I have which I would like to discuss. Now you can answer me this - how does it BENEFIT childrens understanding of biology/physics in any way by teaching them creationism, walking on water, miracles, etc. All it does is confuse them when learning about science. Confusion leads to anger and resentment towards the education system.

Obviously I can't prove this at the moment, just like I can't prove gravity. But it's the only theory that makes sense at the moment - I'm not willing to jump off a building to test it out.

And in particular, not only how does it benefit them - but what is the point at all of teaching them that crap?

strobe

It should be an option in secondary school like history or music is. I hear in primary school now they have a 'general studies' module. So they should probably do a little bit of religion in that, not as much as geography or history or anything but a little bit touching on the various religions would be a good idea to see if they would like to study it as a subject in secondary school.