Should religion be taught in schools?

dvpower

Seachmall wrote: »

I was having fun :mad:

I was loosing the will to live;)

Powerhouse

dvpower wrote: »

I just couldn't take it anymore

http://www.examinations.ie/statistics/statistics_2010/JC_619_2010.pdf

Religion: 20,336 + 5,594
C.S.P.E 54,753


However, CSPE is a mandatory subject so the numbers point to nothing at all.

Sufferin' Jaysus ... central to my point all along was that CSPE was mandatory (the numbers point precisely to that hence my mentioning them) - somebody said it should be, which implied that it wasn't. I quoted the figures (thanks by the way - I'd have dragged it out until tomorrow!) to dispute that.

Seachmall

Powerhouse wrote: »

Sufferin' Jaysus ... central to my point all along was that CSPE was mandatory (the numbers point precisely to that hence my mentioning them) - somebody said it should be, which implied that it wasn't. I quoted the figures (thanks by the way - I'd have dragged it out until tomorrow!) to dispute that.

You do get that you didn't source them and thus your numbers were irrelevant to all concerned, right?

It's very simple really.

Rosita

Seachmall wrote: »

Can you understand why I asked you where you got the numbers from? I'm not being pedantic* but if you're going to make claims, and then expect people to believe those claims, you may want to provide a source.

*I am being pedantic.

But you have no credibility on this having claimed to know the figures already. You then presumably knew them to be correct. If you genuinely didn't know it'd be a different matter. It was just silly brinkmanship and sillier still because you claimed to have access to the figures.

Seachmall

Rosita wrote: »

But you have no credibility on this having claimed to know the figures already. You then presumably knew them to be correct. If you genuinely didn't know it'd be a different matter. It was just silly brinkmanship and sillier still because you claimed to have access to the figures.

He made a claim. He didn't back it up. He then stated his point was supported by his unproven claim. When questioned on the validity of the claim he failed to produce a source yet still expected those who didn't know the figures to believe him.

What I knew was irrelevant to the matter. The point is clear.

Rosita

Seachmall wrote: »

He made a claim. He didn't back it up. He then stated his point was supported by his unproven claim. When questioned on the validity of the claim he failed to produce a source yet still expected those who didn't know the figures to believe him.

What I knew was irrelevant to the matter. The point is clear.

His figures were spot on (one hell of a guess I'd say!) and the source would automatically be obvious to anyone who is involved in education. He was clearly stringing you along in avoiding stating the obvious source and you are making yourself look like a silly pedant at this stage. And also a silly pedant who himself appears to have made up a yarn about seeing an official release of the figures. Had this been true you'd have known he was correct and backed off making such an anal argument.

Seachmall

Rosita wrote: »

His figures were spot on (one hell of a guess I'd say!) and the source would automatically be obvious to anyone who is involved in education. He was clearly stringing you along in avoiding stating the obvious source and you are making yourself look like a silly pedant at this stage. And also a silly pedant who himself appears to have made up a yarn about seeing an official release of the figures. Had this been true you'd have known he was correct and backed off making such an anal argument.

You seem to be missing the point on both accounts. Unfortunate really.

Rosita

Seachmall wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point on both accounts. Unfortunate really.

Point on account 1 - his figures were accurate as the link showed (who provided the link is irrelevant).

Point on account 2 - you were bluffing when you claimed you had seen official figures.

Now you are in a hole and digging furiously.

It's actually quite clear.

Seachmall

Rosita wrote: »

Point on account 1 - his figures were accurate as the link showed (who provided the link is irrelevant).

Point on account 2 - you were bluffing when you claimed you had seen official figures.

Now you are in a hole and digging furiously.

It's actually quite clear..

Point on account 1 - They were, but he still presumed his word was good enough and failed to produce them when asked.
Point on account 2 - I had seen them, they weren't exactly difficult to find hence my continue pushing of him to produce them.

They were clear, yet you still got them wrong.

The beer numbs the pain of being in such a hole.

Powerhouse

Seachmall wrote: »

You do get that you didn't source them and thus your numbers were irrelevant to all concerned, right?

It's very simple really.

I know your back is to the wall at this stage, but seriously...do you think that I could make up figures as accurate as that?

Do do you not think a teacher would easily be able to access national exam statistics? Or provide a link if they were arsed?

Your pedantic Pete act was funny but like Rosita says you are really looking silly now trying to keep it going. :P

Cú Giobach

Powerhouse wrote: »

I'd have thought there was already a clue in the name...the theory of evolution? No? No harm in clarity I suppose! :P

The name is "Evolution" not "The Theory of Evolution".
The "Theory" describes how the fact of evolution works, just like "the theory of gravity" describes how gravity works, same with "the heliocentric theory" describing how the Sun is the centre of the solar system.

getz

this is worth a look at,http/teachdontpreach.ie.

Ellis Dee

Apologies: I seem to have duplicated a post. I thought the first one had failed to post and so wrote it again. It's the next one.

Ellis Dee

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The name is "Evolution" not "The Theory of Evolution".
The "Theory" describes how the fact of evolution works, just like "the theory of gravity" describes how gravity works, same with "the heliocentric theory" describing how the Sun is the centre of the solar system.

I agree. I suppose it was fair to call it "only" a theory when C. Darwin originally formulated it away back in the 1850s. Now, however, the body of evidence supporting it is simply vast - fossils and the advances in geology, palaeomagnetism and isotape dating that enables their age to be established with great accuracy as well as the strides in DNA technology that are being made by the day - must run into hundreds of thousands of pages of checkable, verifiable scientific findings. By contrast, I have yet to see a single line of scientific data indicating the existence of a supernatural being.:)

Cú Giobach

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I agree. I suppose it was fair to call it "only" a theory when C. Darwin originally formulated it away back in the 1850s. Now, however, the body of evidence supporting it is simply vast - fossils and the advances in geology, palaeomagnetism and isotape dating that enables their age to be established with great accuracy as well as the strides in DNA technology that are being made by the day - must run into hundreds of thousands of pages of checkable, verifiable scientific findings. By contrast, I have yet to see a single line of scientific data indicating the existence of a supernatural being.:)

Good points.

The biggest problem wit this word "Theory" is the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothetical theory.

The word "theory" is defined as (among others)....

1. The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another,
2. Abstract thought,
3. An ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances,
4. An unproved assumption,

Some people tend to use definition #4 in relation to the theory of evolution, whereas in context it is actually definition #1

Akrasia

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: My post wasn't even about education. There are multiple discussions happening on thread now. Someone said that morality is separate to faith, I don't really believe it is which is why I questioned that persons post. It has nothing to do with education. I think parents are best to teach their children about ethics as I don't believe a State ethics class would really be all that good.

Most parents aren't equipped to teach ethics, most parents don't know enough about who J S Mill was, or Kant, or Epicurus, or aristottle etc to be able to provide an education in ethics.

What they can do is build a fundamental value system (ie: don't hit your sister) but the education system should be building on this by giving children the tools to understand the principles of ethics and to reason why some acts are moral and others are not (bearing in mind that it is a very grey area. There are countless ethical situations where there is no single right or wrong action, which seems to contradict the fact that there is a univeral morality directed by god)

In my sincerely held view, dogmatic morality is the very worst kind of moral education. It is the kind of thinking that allows extremist views and actions, from stoning adulterers, to banning gay marriage.

You can't reason with a dogmatic point of view. No matter how pursuasive a moral argument might be, if it contradicts with someone's religious conviction that something is against god, they will not change their mind.

Akrasia

barry711 wrote: »

Your making two very different statements here. On one had your saying that the only reason the church want it is because parents would mis-inform there kids about catholic theology. Then on the other had your saying: They also know that it is far far easier to get people to believe in christianity (or any other religion) when they are young impressionable and naive or otherwise vulnerable to suggestion...sounds like brainwashing to me.

The primary interest of the catholic church is to ensure the survival of their religion. To do this, they need to ensure that the next generation grow up believing in religion. This has been getting harder and harder as people become better educated (was much easier when people couldn't read and all the masses were in latin, people were just christian by default and did what they were told) Now that there is universal education in western countries, the church wants to make sure that children are caught while they're young. They can't trust the parents to do it properly, so they want to retain control of the school system so they can do it themselves.

The recent offers of the RC church to increase the number of secular schools in ireland is a very underhanded move. They are prepared to write off a proportion of the population, the trade off is that where the church retains patronage, the religious education will be even more dogmatic and uncompromising. They are strongly lobbying the government to allow religious schools more autonomy to teach their own 'ethos' (dogma) free from state interference. They can make this case much more forcibly if there are secular alternatives so that parents are seen to be consenting to the indoctrination if they choose a catholic school.

philologos

Akrasia wrote: »

Most parents aren't equipped to teach ethics, most parents don't know enough about who J S Mill was, or Kant, or Epicurus, or aristottle etc to be able to provide an education in ethics.

I am aware of them having studied philosophy as a part of my BA but I still wouldn't favour these ethical systems to the Judeo-Christian system of ethics. I believe that the Christian message provides a rock solid basis for ethical action. I think though, if I eventually do have children that I will teach them about philosophy as well because it encourages an equiring mind. It searches for answers and never stops and it doesn't accept "No" for an answer.

Akrasia wrote: »

What they can do is build a fundamental value system (ie: don't hit your sister) but the education system should be building on this by giving children the tools to understand the principles of ethics and to reason why some acts are moral and others are not (bearing in mind that it is a very grey area. There are countless ethical situations where there is no single right or wrong action, which seems to contradict the fact that there is a univeral morality directed by god)

You mean such as whether or not I eat a chicken sandwich for lunch? I presume that isn't an ethical issue precisely because it doesn't deal with one of these three things:
1) Our relationship with God
2) Our relationship with others
3) Our relationship with ourselves

A lot of people would remove 1 and / or 3 from consideration but ultimately as I see it both are hugely important.

A lot of two for a whole lot of people follows from 1. God gives them the example. In Christian terms Jesus sacrificed Himself for us, we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves for others. Jesus forgave us for all that we have done wrong, therefore we shouldn't hold grudges but be willing to give people mercy and grace in recognition that we're not all perfect people. God created us with a purpose as such we should aim to glorify Him in everything that we do. One can hold that such beliefs have a huge impact on ethical behaviour even if they are not in agreement that such beliefs are necessary for ethical behaviour.

As for three. How are you meant to show love and mercy to others if you can't cut yourself a little slack? If you are down in yourself, if you lack self-confidence, that is a challenge in and of itself. Admittedly I went through a lot of that kind of stuff for a long time in that I believed the nonsense that people at school said to me. I eventually realised that it didn't matter a pick what people said about me because ultimately what counts in the end is what God thinks of me.

Akrasia wrote: »

You can't reason with a dogmatic point of view. No matter how pursuasive a moral argument might be, if it contradicts with someone's religious conviction that something is against god, they will not change their mind.

The thing is I think you can reason with Christians about their faith. The second one complains they can't is the second that they themselves have decided to cut off all forms of dialogue, not the other way around.

An interesting exercise for me has been asking "OK, why did God command this?". I mightn't be able to know 100% but it is worth an enquiry in to. Simply asking this question can inform you a lot about the intention that God had for mankind in giving these commandments. The Biblical text tells us that God gave us His commandments for our good rather than for our detriment. So I think it is fair to say that we can look to them and question as to why they were given. Most of the time it isn't even all that difficult.

Apanachi

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.

^^ this

smash

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So it is better for you to tell him that is fact the there is no God? Hypocrasy if I ever saw it.

What you or I believe is irrelevant here. It is about the child deciding for themselves.

Sorry but it is not irrelevant in the slightest. It appears that your issue is that I don't believe and you do believe, and your problem is that I've stated my beliefs to my son and you don't like it.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What you need to do, as I would if and when I am a mother, is explain that everyone believes different things, your teacher might believe X and I believe Y but it is up to you decide for yourself.

That's not really how it works. If someone told your child that peter pan was real and if they believe really hard then they'll be able to fly too, would you tell them "that person might believe X and I believe Y but it is up to you decide"? Come off it.

Jethropool

The reason atheists can't argue with christians on the fundamentals is because christian polemic illogically assumes the existence of God. That is an impasse. When it comes to a question such as whether religion should be indoctrinated in schools it's quite straightforward. Both options should be easily available for those who want them. The central tenet of christianity boils down to two words "be nice" but there is too much "do as I say, believe what I believe" in the wings. Personally I find faith utterly incomprehensible and can only conclude it to be a result of indoctrination, but I know too many intelligent people who have faith to be 100% comfortable with this.

Akrasia

philologos wrote: »

An interesting exercise for me has been asking "OK, why did God command this?". I mightn't be able to know 100% but it is worth an enquiry in to. Simply asking this question can inform you a lot about the intention that God had for mankind in giving these commandments. The Biblical text tells us that God gave us His commandments for our good rather than for our detriment. So I think it is fair to say that we can look to them and question as to why they were given. Most of the time it isn't even all that difficult.

So basically, you're interpreting what you think god meant when he laid down the commandments, instead of simply following the commandments.

That makes the commandments redundant. They are used to reflexively justify actions that someone was already pre-disposed to do, rather than form a set of guidelines that someone should live by.

"Thou Shalt not Kill" seems like a pretty simple statement, but people have been killing each other in the name of the christian god for thousands of years, and the bible specifically commands people to kill others who are breaking one or another of the many archaic rules in the old testament. rationalisation: Oh, that's because 'what the bible meant to say was "Thou shalt not murder, and I define Murder as x y z"

Commandments that require interpretation are a disaster, because they lead to confusion and conflict as some people interpret them literally, and others insert get out clauses based on other parts of the scripture.

Essentially, people can interpret the bible to justify pretty much any kind of moral activity, and also to condemn pretty much any kind of moral activity.

smash

Akrasia wrote: »

Commandments that require interpretation are a disaster, because they lead to confusion and conflict as some people interpret them literally, and others insert get out clauses based on other parts of the scripture.

The commandments were man made as a was of controlling the people because breaking them was considered blasphemy (rather than breaking the law) and was punishable by death. Anyway, this is all OT.

philologos

Akrasia wrote: »

So basically, you're interpreting what you think god meant when he laid down the commandments, instead of simply following the commandments.

Both. Faith isn't just about following blindly, it's also about finding out more about who God is. There is no better way to do that than investigating into how He did things in the Biblical text. Following God is a result of knowing who God is at least in part.

Akrasia wrote: »

That makes the commandments redundant. They are used to reflexively justify actions that someone was already pre-disposed to do, rather than form a set of guidelines that someone should live by.

Not in the slightest. It makes perfect sense why one would look into them. I think your reasoning is a little off though. It is wholly possible that if I was living in a manner contrary to what the Bible would encourage that I could read what it has to say, think about it and see how reasonable it is and accept that my life needs to change. That wouldn't be something I was predisposed to do at all, that would be something based on reasonable thought.

Akrasia wrote: »

"Thou Shalt not Kill" seems like a pretty simple statement, but people have been killing each other in the name of the christian god for thousands of years, and the bible specifically commands people to kill others who are breaking one or another of the many archaic rules in the old testament. rationalisation: Oh, that's because 'what the bible meant to say was "Thou shalt not murder, and I define Murder as x y z"

The word in the Hebrew language is murder if you look it up in a concordance.

EDIT:

רָצַח ratsach (953d); a prim. root; to murder, slay:—killed(1), kills the manslayer(1), manslayer(18), murder(7), murdered(2), murderer(12), murderer shall be put(1), murderers(1), murders(1), put to death(1), slew(1).

Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : Updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.

Akrasia wrote: »

Commandments that require interpretation are a disaster, because they lead to confusion and conflict as some people interpret them literally, and others insert get out clauses based on other parts of the scripture.

Every piece of text, every life experience, every thought requires proper interpretation and analysis, every act of speech requires some form of interpretation. If you say something to me, you are uttering a thought which you have put into speech using a best-effort style algorithm if you will. Likewise when I receive this speech, I must use a best-effort style algorithm in order to try and reconstruct what you were originally thinking. There is also allowance for a lack of clarity in the communication. Of course different media are better to use for different things. If you don't expect me to remember something you would write it down for example. Then other questions come into play about the communication.

Akrasia wrote: »

Essentially, people can interpret the bible to justify pretty much any kind of moral activity, and also to condemn pretty much any kind of moral activity.

They can use it, as to whether or not it is reasonable to be used in that manner is possible to determine using a number of different tools that should be used in interpreting any text particularly a text that is written in ancient languages. One could claim the same about Plato's Republic for example, but when I analyse a passage and context correctly it seems to narrow things down, I don't see why this can't be true of the Bible.

Knight who says Meh

In answer to the question, how about:
Because the vile organisation which assumes it has the right to educate our kids and have their twisted fairy tales taught to the self same kids are refusing, as of today, to pay their compensation for the kids they beat and buggered their way through several generations of thus putting further strain upon these kids and their future kids through more punishing budget cuts and taxation.


Just a thought.....

crucamim

Akrasia wrote: »

The primary interest of the catholic church is to ensure the survival of their religion. They can't trust the parents to do it properly, so they want to retain control of the school system so they can do it themselves.

And what could be wrong with that? Is self-interest a crime? What next? Will you complain about the IRFU promoting the playing of rugby union? Or about the GAA promoting hurling and gaelic football?

crucamim

Knight who says Meh wrote: »

In answer to the question, how about:
Because the vile organisation which assumes it has the right to educate our kids and have their twisted fairy tales taught to the self same kids are refusing, as of today, to pay their compensation for the kids they beat and buggered their way through several generations of thus putting further strain upon these kids and their future kids through more punishing budget cuts and taxation..

We Catholics have a right to live without having our church described as a "vile organisation". Why should any Catholic allow his children to be taught by a person who regards the Catholic Church as a "vile organisation"?

dvpower

crucamim wrote: »

And what could be wrong with that? Is self-interest a crime? What next? Will you complain about the IRFU promoting the playing of rugby union? Or about the GAA promoting hurling and gaelic football?

Are the GAA and the IRFU to be given patronage of our schools?

dvpower

crucamim wrote: »

Why should any Catholic allow his children to be taught by a person who regards the Catholic Church as a "vile organisation"?

Because there isn't a practical choice at the moment.

crucamim

Akrasia wrote: »

The recent offers of the RC church to increase the number of secular schools in ireland is a very underhanded move. They are prepared to write off a proportion of the population, the trade off is that where the church retains patronage, the religious education will be even more dogmatic and uncompromising. They are strongly lobbying the government to allow religious schools more autonomy to teach their own 'ethos' (dogma) free from state interference. They can make this case much more forcibly if there are secular alternatives so that parents are seen to be consenting to the indoctrination if they choose a catholic school.

What could be wrong with that? I hope that the Catholic bishops will drive a very hard bargain before any schools owned by the Catholic church are transferred to the State or any other body. I hope that the will insist on terms at least as strong as those suggested by yourself. Catholics have a right to be Catholics. Catholics have a right to have their children educated in a Catholic environment - with no anti-Catholics in the school.