School patronage

Hotblack Desiato

What's the point of getting rid of one sort of woo in schools and replacing it with another?

How would you define it anyway?

Peregrinus

How would I define what?

Hotblack Desiato

How would you define 'spiritual development'?

Peregrinus

Well, how would you define it? You're the one who objects to it, and would prefer to see it excluded from schools. You must have some idea what it is you're objecting to.

And, while you're thinking about that:

Spirit: the animating or vital principle in humans (and animals); that which gives life to the physical organism, in contrast to its purely material elements; the breath of life.

Spiritual: Of or relating to, affecting or concerning, the spirit or higher moral qualities.

Spirituality: The quality or condition of being spiritual; attachment to or regard for things of the spirit as opposed to material or worldly interests.

Spiritual development: the development of the individual's spirituality. (But you probably saw that one coming.)

Obviously it's possible to use these concepts in both theistic and atheistic contexts.

Materialism, as you and I both know, Hotblack, is the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Materialism is not atheism, but materialists tend to be atheists, and the much-maligned term "new atheism" seems to me to mean something like "atheist materialists". For obvious reasons materialists tend to deny either the reality of spirit, spirituality, etc in the above senses or their significance or value. And of course a materialist is as entitled to their unfalsifiable beliefs as the next man or woman. But it seems to me that they are demanding a certain privilege for themselves if they demand that the state or the community treat non-materialist beliefs as "woo", and exclude them from the education system. And they are being less than completely honest, either with themselves or with the rest of us, if they present their stance as one which demands parity or accommodation for atheism. What they are actually advocating for is materialism, a philosophical stance which is just as unevidenced as the stances they criticise and seek to exclude.

lazygal

What's a demand for "materialism", exactly? Is this the Catholic version of materialism?

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

What's a demand for "materialism", exactly? Is this the Catholic version of materialism?

Overlapping posts. I think I address this in the last para of my post #1805 to Hotblack. Catholicism and materialism are analogous to one another in that they both make truth-claims which can't be falsified, but there isn't a "Catholic version of materialism", in that their respective truth-claims are incompatible.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, how would you define it? You're the one who objects to it, and would prefer to see it excluded from schools. You must have some idea what it is you're objecting to.

Those who seek to have it included in schools are the ones who need to define it and justify its inclusion, not me.

Spirit: the animating or vital principle in humans (and animals); that which gives life to the physical organism, in contrast to its purely material elements; the breath of life.

And off into the woo we go.

Spiritual: Of or relating to, affecting or concerning, the spirit or higher moral qualities.

So people who claim to be spiritual are more moral?

But it seems to me that they are demanding a certain privilege for themselves if they demand that the state or the community treat non-materialist beliefs as "woo", and exclude them from the education system.

If in the future we have a system which excludes teaching religion as fact, it shouldn't teach religion-lite as fact either. This is not a special privilege for a position (materialism), it is not endorsing an unevidenced position (spirituality).

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Those who seek to have it included in schools are the ones who need to define it and justify its inclusion, not me.

If you're not prepared to say what it is your objecting to, Hotblack, your objection is - in the literal sense - meaningless, and you can't expect anyone to pay much attention to it.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

And off into the woo we go.

As I say, you are entitled to regard any unevidenced belief that you do not happen to share as "woo". You are not entitled to demand that others should do so. And you must concede that others are entitled to regard your unevidenced beliefs as "woo".

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So people who claim to be spiritual are more moral?

No.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If in the future we have a system which excludes teaching religion as fact, it shouldn't teach religion-lite as fact either. This is not a special privilege for a position (materialism), it is not endorsing an unevidenced position (spirituality).

It is demanding a special provision for materialism. If, by "religion-lite", you mean unfalsifiable beliefs, you are demanding that all education should be conducted in accordance with your unfalsifiable belief, which is materialism.

Hotblack Desiato

Sigh. You are the one giving privilege to a viewpoint. Spirituality gets in by default and it's up to me to justify its exclusion to you? How about we start with a blank slate. Everything that is on the curriculum should be able to justify its presence there.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Spirit: the animating or vital principle in humans (and animals); that which gives life to the physical organism

We have this in school already it's called Biochemistry.

Peregrinus wrote: »

, in contrast to its purely material elements; the breath of life.

There is no contrast to the material elements. Remove or alter even just one of the relevent material elements, you will stop the necessary chemcial reactions and you have no life.

Nick Park

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm puzzled, katydid. If parents educate their children in the faith, that's the church taking responsibility. And if education happens in church halls through Sunday schools and the like, that's the church taking responsibility. But if it happens in schools, that can't be the church taking responsibility?

It's a strange ecclesiology in which "church" embraces the nuclear family and the parish, but not other institutions. From a Catholic point of view, there is absolutely no reason why the mission of the church can't be expressed through a school. Once again, I think, you are criticising the Catholic church for acting in accordance with its own understanding of what a church is rather than in accordance with yours.

The difference, of course, is that non-church members do not contribute their taxes to subsidise parents in educating their children in the faith, or to subsidise Sunday schools and the like in church halls.

The fact is that non-church taxpayers are expected to finance schools that teach a particular religious viewpoint. And then, because a church school exists in a given locality, the State believes it has fulfilled its duty to provide access to education for the children in that locality. That is discriminatory and wrong.

The solution is for the State to provide a publicly-funded non-religious school within easy access of every child in the State. That's what parents expect from a developed country in the Western world.

And then, if adherents to any religion (including my own) wish to fund their own private alternative schools they should have the freedom to do so.

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you're not prepared to say what it is your objecting to, Hotblack, your objection is - in the literal sense - meaningless, and you can't expect anyone to pay much attention to it.

Well I object specifically to the teaching about what you have described in the above definitions, if that helps.

Spirituality is worth discussing as a topic under the broader umbrella of an ethics or humanities class but outside of confines of a specific religion it's far too flimsy and subjective a concept to dedicate any real time to.

Absolam

Dades wrote: »

Well I object specifically to the teaching about what you have described in the above definitions, if that helps.
Spirituality is worth discussing as a topic under the broader umbrella of an ethics or humanities class but outside of confines of a specific religion it's far too flimsy and subjective a concept to dedicate any real time to.

If it helps, I included it as part of the definition for multi-denominational because it is this aspect of Educate Together that Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland feels distinguishes ET from non-denominational schools. ETs own view is that:

Educate Together wrote:

In place of religious instruction programmes, which are taught in denominational schools, Educate Together schools teach the Learn Together Ethical Education Curriculum. This curriculum includes as one of four strands:
Moral and Spiritual – children learn about feelings and values, the development of conscience, choices and consequences, stillness and meditation.

Aside from the somewhat arguable meditation, I don't think any other aspect of ETs Spiritual development strand qualifies as 'woo' per Hotblack Desiato, though I understand a certain amount of knee jerk reaction to anything involving the word spirit

Dades

Absolam wrote: »

Educate Together wrote:

In place of religious instruction programmes, which are taught in denominational schools, Educate Together schools teach the Learn Together Ethical Education Curriculum. This curriculum includes as one of four strands:
Moral and Spiritual – children learn about feelings and values, the development of conscience, choices and consequences, stillness and meditation.

Aside from the somewhat arguable meditation, I don't think any other aspect of ETs Spiritual development strand qualifies as 'woo' per Hotblack Desiato, though I understand a certain amount of knee jerk reaction to anything involving the word spirit

Not a lot of woo in there.

Brian Shanahan

Peregrinus wrote: »

Spirit: the animating or vital principle in humans (and animals); that which gives life to the physical organism, in contrast to its purely material elements; the breath of life.

So you want schools to teach something which has no existence. Will you be teaching creatardism and phlogiston too?

Spiritual: Of or relating to, affecting or concerning, the spirit or higher moral qualities.

"relating to the spirit"=relating to something which doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a soul nor is there a spiritual plane. And a civics class will teach better morals than any religious woo.

Spirituality: The quality or condition of being spiritual; attachment to or regard for things of the spirit as opposed to material or worldly interests.

Or in more precise terms, spirituality is the prioritisation of the fake over the real. It is a great way to get people to not rebel over the evils forced upon them in this life all right, just promise them that if they give up their fight for bread today, they'll get jam tomorrow. Only problem is that its still a pernicious lie.

Spiritual development: the development of the individual's spirituality. (But you probably saw that one coming.)

Maybe we should also teach children to develop their PSI talents, or how they can fly just by flapping their arms or how the world was created 6,000 years ago by a giant douche who left evidence that its a lot older lying around because he's also a giant dick.

My apologies if my refusal to join your crusade to get even more nonsense into schools offends, but I'd rather have my putative children educated in a reality-based curriculum.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

What we're seeing here is a division within atheism, with atheist materialist seeking to make atheist materialism normative for atheism.

If this were the case, wouldn't the people wanting a "non-denominational" school instead be wanting a curriculum with a similar structure to the NS norm, but with
The Woo Slot (religious instruction or "Learn Together Ethical Education") replaced with dialectical materialism? Which ironically might be easier to smuggle past the Rules for National Schools -- on paper. (Prospects of any given Minister of Education approving this "may vary".)

Absolam

Dades wrote: »

Not a lot of woo in there.

Hard to imagine parents who wouldn't want their children to learn about feelings, values, conscience, choices and consequences, if maybe not so much stillness and meditation though? It may not be the three rs of old, but it's hardly unfounded or unsubstantiated educational material....

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

If this were the case, wouldn't the people wanting a "non-denominational" school instead be wanting a curriculum with a similar structure to the NS norm, but with
The Woo Slot (religious instruction or "Learn Together Ethical Education") replaced with dialectical materialism? Which ironically might be easier to smuggle past the Rules for National Schools -- on paper. (Prospects of any given Minister of Education approving this "may vary".)

I think the call here is for a curriculum which presumes the truth/validity/correctness of a materialistic worldview, and is structured accordingly. Obviously that doesn't leave any space for examination of the proposition of materialism itself, or the awkward question of whether there is any evidence for it.

Hotblack Desiato

The call here is for making the best use of limited teaching hours.

Make your case.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The call here is for making the best use of limited teaching hours. Make your case.

Education in non 'hard' subjects such as values, conscience, choices and consequences and even morals, ethics and understanding emotional responses adds as much if not more to the development of future citizens than rote recitation of traditional subjects?

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The call here is for making the best use of limited teaching hours.

Make your case.

Youre starting point, Hotblack, is that there are no non-material realities. That starting point must inevitably colour your sense of what is "best". The question is how you persuade people who do not share that starting point to agree with you? Or, if you can't get them to agree with you, how you justify the demand that your perspective should prevail over theirs?

Remember, I'm not arguing that no school should provide an education grounded in philosophical materialism. I'm objecting to the suggestion that an education must be grounded in philosophical materialism in order to accommodate atheists. Atheist don't have to be materialists, and many are not.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Education in non 'hard' subjects such as values, conscience, choices and consequences and even morals, ethics and understanding emotional responses adds as much if not more to the development of future citizens than rote recitation of traditional subjects?

Indeed, and I would envisage that "ethics and philosophy" would be a school subject in future non-denominational schools. Maybe not allocated as much time as the three "r"s, but a subject nonetheless.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Youre starting point, Hotblack, is that there are no non-material realities. That starting point must inevitably colour your sense of what is "best". The question is how you persuade people who do not share that starting point to agree with you? Or, if you can't get them to agree with you, how you justify the demand that your perspective should prevail over theirs?

The starting point is that any unproven supernatural beliefs are a private matter for the individual, and therefore will not be taught as "fact" in the school.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Remember, I'm not arguing that no school should provide an education grounded in philosophical materialism. I'm objecting to the suggestion that an education must be grounded in philosophical materialism in order to accommodate atheists. Atheist don't have to be materialists, and many are not.

If "philosophical materialism" includes everything that we "know" but excludes supernatural beliefs, then it is the common denominator that everyone can agree with.

Say for example there is an atheist who does not believe in gods, but does believe in something irrational like the power of homeopathy. The non-denom school would still be quite suitable for them, even though an increasing awareness of science might shake their beliefs somewhat. Just because a school does not teach irrational beliefs does not mean it is unsuitable for those holding the beliefs. It just means that the beliefs, in the absence of artificial supports (lies and indoctrination) are liable to fade, unless they are re-inforced outside of school. Which option is always available to religious families anyway.

K4t

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

My apologies if my refusal to join your crusade to get even more nonsense into schools offends, but I'd rather have my putative children educated in a reality-based curriculum.

What the people you are arguing with do not understand, is that even if 99.99999999% of Irish citizens identified themselves as practicing Roman Catholics, attended mass every week, and all stated they believed in God; It would still NOT be right to have faith schools; Secular schools would still be the correct thing. And if a referendum was held to make schools secular and obviously voted against, secular schools would still be right! Because secular schools do not decide what is right and those who support secular schools admit they do not know everything. Secular schools encourage questioning and reasoning and logic and respect for all other beliefs.
A religious school teaches that a god exists, an atheist school would teach that no gods exist, and a secular school is neutral on the question of religion: it does not teach that gods either do or do not exist.
Instead, a secular school teaches children in a neutral, objective way about the different beliefs that different people have about gods. It teaches that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

K4t

^And I of course mean state-funded schools in the above post before the usual's twist the discussion.

Absolam

K4t wrote: »

What the people you are arguing with do not understand, is that even if 99.99999999% of Irish citizens identified themselves as practicing Roman Catholics, attended mass every week, and all stated they believed in God; It would still NOT be right to have faith schools; Secular schools would still be the correct thing.

That would seem to be entirely a matter of opinion though; there seem to be plenty of people who think faith schools are the correct thing. And by and large, they're the ones who built the schools we have, so they also seem to have the advantage of being prepared to act on their convictions.

K4t wrote: »

And if a referendum was held to make schools secular and obviously voted against, secular schools would still be right! Because secular schools do not decide what is right and those who support secular schools admit they do not know everything.

Again, surely that would be a matter of opinion? An opinion you appear to think is not even shared by secular schools, if you say they are right but they say they do not decide what is right? Unless you're claiming an objective right, which is a proposition you'd share with the religious?

silverharp

K4t wrote: »

What the people you are arguing with do not understand, is that even if 99.99999999% of Irish citizens identified themselves as practicing Roman Catholics, attended mass every week, and all stated they believed in God; It would still NOT be right to have faith schools; Secular schools would still be the correct thing.

In such a situation though let's say that 2/3 of parents can justify that they pay enough tax to cover their educational costs , should they get a tax credit or some such rebate back if they still want a religious school? The principle being that the state shouldn't force people to pay twice for the same service which is all education is. If you didn't give a rebate weathly people could afford to pay twice but middle class people might not, lower income people wouldn't be an issue as they get the education for free so they take what is on offer .
So yes absolutely the state shoulnt run religious schools but they shouldn't force people via the tax system not to go to a religious school.

TheChizler

silverharp wrote: »

In such a situation though let's say that 2/3 of parents can justify that they pay enough tax to cover their educational costs , should they get a tax credit or some such rebate back if they still want a religious school? The principle being that the state shouldn't force people to pay twice for the same service which is all education is. If you didn't give a rebate weathly people could afford to pay twice but middle class people might not, lower income people wouldn't be an issue as they get the education for free so they take what is on offer.

At the risk of echoing myself in another forum... What exactly would they be paying twice for?

Nick Park

silverharp wrote: »

In such a situation though let's say that 2/3 of parents can justify that they pay enough tax to cover their educational costs , should they get a tax credit or some such rebate back if they still want a religious school? The principle being that the state shouldn't force people to pay twice for the same service which is all education is. If you didn't give a rebate weathly people could afford to pay twice but middle class people might not, lower income people wouldn't be an issue as they get the education for free so they take what is on offer .
So yes absolutely the state shoulnt run religious schools but they shouldn't force people via the tax system not to go to a religious school.

The problem with that proposal is it confuses something that is a basic obligation (a modern western European State providing a decent non-discriminatory educational system for all children), with something that is a lifestyle choice (sending children to a school that will indoctrinate them in a religion).

Would you support a similar scenario in another area - say the health service? I don't think it would be acceptable for people who use private health care to dodge paying their share of the tax burden in having a decent publicly-funded health service that is available to all.

There may be a case for making private school fees (religious or not) a tax-deductible expense. But those who choose to opt for private education for their children should still be expected to fund the State educational system in the same way as everyone else.

silverharp

TheChizler wrote: »

At the risk of echoing myself in another forum... What exactly would they be paying twice for?

In the scenario all non fee paying schools are secular and i assume no fundung for other schools, the school they actually want to send their kids to in this case the now religious private and the place the state would have to provide if they chose that option via their taxes they pay.
The direct cost that religious parents should pay for directly would be the religious element of the schooltime and any costs that are incurred in training teachers to teach religion which I assume are lost in the system at present ie non religious people subsidise the teaching of religion in schools plus their kids have a couple if hours a week wasted on pointless classes or makey uppy classes in my own kids cases.

silverharp

Nick Park wrote: »

The problem with that proposal is it confuses something that is a basic obligation (a modern western European State providing a decent non-discriminatory educational system for all children), with something that is a lifestyle choice (sending children to a school that will indoctrinate them in a religion).

Would you support a similar scenario in another area - say the health service? I don't think it would be acceptable for people who use private health care to dodge paying their share of the tax burden in having a decent publicly-funded health service that is available to all.

There may be a case for making private school fees (religious or not) a tax-deductible expense. But those who choose to opt for private education for their children should still be expected to fund the State educational system in the same way as everyone else.

I'm not arguing that people shouldnt support low income people. Realistically 2/3 (guess) of the people pay for directly the services of the other third , but the 2/3 that can pay their way shouldn't be forced into a public monopoly.