Ireland first course on Atheism to be launched in schooll

clairefontaine

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Atheist-organization-launches-Irelands-first-ever-school-course-on-atheism-224766642.html

So the Atheists are going to introduce atheism into school in conjunction with Educate Together.

Isn't this reaction to one mistake with another?

Why is religion a subject at all in the first place?

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Atheist-organization-launches-Irelands-first-ever-school-course-on-atheism-224766642.html

So the Atheists are going to introduce atheism into school in conjunction with Educate Together.

Isn't this reaction to one mistake with another?

Why is religion a subject at all in the first place?

Sure why study something that has no impact in the world?

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

Sure why study something that has no impact in the world?

At primary level?

Optional at secondary, ok.

Obligatory at primary no.

I like the US model of keeping religion out of state schools.

smacl

clairefontaine wrote: »

So the Atheists are going to introduce atheism into school in conjunction with Educate Together.

Love to see the curriculum for this one. How many pages can you fill with the words I don't believe in God. Surely a course on critical thinking, philosophy, history or one of the sciences would be a better use of time.

clairefontaine

smacl wrote: »

Love to see the curriculum for this one. How many pages can you fill with the words I don't believe in God. Surely a course on critical thinking, philosophy, history or one of the sciences would be a better use of time.

I totally agree. Religion should be wiped and replaced with humanistic reasoning, or more science.

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

I totally agree. Religion should be wiped and replaced with humanistic reasoning, or more science.

Religion or the study of Religions?

The absence of prayers is fine in US schools, the absence of knowledge about religions is not.

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

Religion or the study of Religions?

The absence of prayers is fine in US schools, the absence of knowledge about religions is not.

Both. Madsl, kids do not get theology in elementary school. An that's the way it should be.

smacl

MadsL wrote: »

The absence of prayers is fine in US schools, the absence of knowledge about religions is not.

Begs the question why, and what is the relative value of teaching it? If the students in question are religious, they'll already be receiving religious education outside of school. If they're not religious, why is it important they understand the culture and ceremony involved in other religions? I think it's a useful option subject at 2nd level, but not at all at primary level. In terms of expending resource, other subjects, e.g. teaching an additional language, would IMHO provide far more value.

Nervous Wreck

Surely the science curriculum covers this...

Turtwig

Great, I guess for the foreseeable future I must consider myself as agnostic as this plays right into the trope that atheism is a religion. Michael, I'm wondering why what your reasoning is on this. On the face of it, it seems a very odd decision. What is the reasoning behind this?

smacl

A bite more on the proposed curriculum here. it seems like a bit of a mish mash, parts of which seem quite unusual;

However, the Learn Together curriculum does not include details about atheism, or events to highlight atheist celebrations, in the way that they do for the various religions that their pupils’ parents identify with. Our new set of lessons will be the first to bridge that gap.

IMHO the whole thing comes across as trying to promote atheism as an alternate philosophy and tradition. As an atheist I find this disingenuous, as it suggests that they're implying I'm part of their little club which I most certainly am not. In addition to being an atheist, I have a deep seated distrust for factionalism and attempts to polarise people's opinion through membership of supposedly opposing groups. That I'm an atheist is largely incidental to my philosophical and political leanings, and I object strongly to anyone suggesting atheists form a homogenous group following some kind of unwritten manifesto. These people need to come up with a new name for what ever it is they're peddling.

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

Both. Madsl, kids do not get theology in elementary school. An that's the way it should be.

Why would you need theology in elementary school to help kids understand why Benjamin's family celebrate Hanukkah rather than Christmas?

Rev Hellfire

clairefontaine wrote: »

I like the US model of keeping religion out of state schools.

I wouldn't hold the states up as a good example of what happens when religious education is allowed run unfettered.

Pwpane

Michael Nugent, the chair of Atheist Ireland, told BreakingNews.ie that the objective of the program is to educate school children about the basic beliefs of atheism

Um, could someone educate me? Do I have basic beliefs about not believing in a God??

Benny_Cake

There's a post up on the Atheist Ireland website here.

I find this a little strange, I've corrected some of my fellow theists in the past when they claim that atheism represents some sore of religion in itself. Four sets of ten lessons? I would have thought it'd be possible to sum up atheism in a couple of sentences, it'll be interesting to see what the content might be.

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

Why would you need theology in elementary school to help kids understand why Benjamin's family celebrate Hanukkah rather than Christmas?

You don't need theology in elementary school. That's my point.

What's yours?

swampgas

Given the prevalence of religion in Irish society, I imagine a lot of kids have very little idea what atheism actually is. Look at all the posts this forum gets from adults asking very basic questions such as "How can atheists know right from wrong?" or "What do atheists think happens when they die?" or "What makes atheists stop believing in God?". And that's from adults!

It's not as simple as saying "An atheist doesn't believe in God - end of lesson". I imagine most children who have been educated in overtly Catholic Irish primary schools, would have a lot of questions to ask about atheism, as some of atheism's core concepts are direct contradictions of the dogma to which they have been exposed.

clairefontaine

My problem with this is that, one atheism isn't a religion, and two, too many atheists end up talking about God more than religious people do.

It should not be an issue in primary school at all. Let the parents deal with it privately.

Tim Robbins

Great news. Well done to Michael Nugent et al.

swampgas

clairefontaine wrote: »

My problem with this is that, one atheism isn't a religion, and two, too many atheists end up talking about God more than religious people do.

It should not be an issue in primary school at all. Let the parents deal with it privately.

I agree that indoctrination has no role in school. That's the parents' own responsibility.

I still see some value in teaching comparative religion, and as part of that there should be some time given to alternative (I hate this next phrase, but anyway, here goes) "world views" such as atheism.

Atheism flatly contradicts the basic premise of almost all of the world's religions, and as such I think some time should be given to it.

clairefontaine

swampgas wrote: »

I agree that indoctrination has no role in school. That's the parents' own responsibility.

I still see some value in teaching comparative religion, and as part of that there should be some time given to alternative (I hate this next phrase, but anyway, here goes) "world views" such as atheism.

Atheism flatly contradicts the basic premise of almost all of the world's religions, and as such I think some time should be given to it.

Sure, but not as obligatory in primary school.

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

You don't need theology in elementary school. That's my point.

What's yours?

That Francis, Benjamin, Abdul, Narinda, Mei and John should all have a basic understanding of the differences as well as the similarities are in what the religions (or lack of religion) that their parents practice teach and do.

That simply requires some interest in humanity, not theology.

As to why they should learnt that? Because they live in a multi faceted society.

JDOC1996

This is absolute nonsense. A complete hypocrisy if nothing else.
Fundamental atheists are just as bad as religious extremists, attempting to polute the minds of others with their ideals.
Can people just be left to their own, personal thoughts on something like religion?
This truly angers me.

swampgas

JDOC1996 wrote: »

This is absolute nonsense. A complete hypocrisy if nothing else.
Fundamental atheists are just as bad as religious extremists, attempting to polute the minds of others with their ideals.
Can people just be left to their own, personal thoughts on something like religion?
This truly angers me.

So you agree that state-funded primary schools shouldn't indoctrinate kids into Catholicism?

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

That Francis, Benjamin, Abdul, Narinda, Mei and John should all have a basic understanding of the differences as well as the similarities are in what the religions (or lack of religion) that their parents practice teach and do.

That simply requires some interest in humanity, not theology.

As to why they should learnt that? Because they live in a multi faceted society.

No they shouldn't.

You don't need theology for that. It's not the responsibility of elementary school teachers to tech them that.

recedite

clairefontaine wrote: »

It should not be an issue in primary school at all. Let the parents deal with it privately.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Sure, but not as obligatory in primary school.

Are you aware that RE Religious Education is a compulsory part of the curriculum in Irish schools? So what would you have the school talk about during those couple of hours per week? Obviously they talk about religion, and now they can also put forward the alternative in an approved format too.
Hopefully at the very least, a generation will grow up knowing what the word atheist means. Too many people around today seem to think an atheist is an agent of satan.

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

No they shouldn't.

You don't need theology for that. It's not the responsibility of elementary school teachers to tech them that.

Theology?

Discussing that many of the world's religions believe in giving to charity, some as an obligation is hardly Theology any more than discussing what clouds are and why it rains is Meteorology.

Geomy

recedite wrote: »

Are you aware that RE Religious Education is a compulsory part of the curriculum in Irish schools? So what would you have the school talk about during those couple of hours per week? Obviously they talk about religion, and now they can also put forward the alternative in an approved format too.
Hopefully at the very least, a generation will grow up knowing what the word atheist means. Too many people around today seem to think an atheist is an agent of satan.

Some people don't even give a toss about Atheism or Religion.

Isn't that absolutely disgraceful.

Is there a name for people who don't worry, think or discuss religion or atheism ?

super_furry

Science damn them! Science damn them all!

shruikan2553

JDOC1996 wrote: »

This is absolute nonsense. A complete hypocrisy if nothing else.
Fundamental atheists are just as bad as religious extremists, attempting to polute the minds of others with their ideals.
Can people just be left to their own, personal thoughts on something like religion?
This truly angers me.

While I would agree with it can just turn into a pissing contest I would hardly call it polluting, the atheist arguments tends to be more like think of this and can you really say you believe in it when you consider science or contradictions in some religious text.

Michael Nugent

Pwpane wrote: »

Quote:
Michael Nugent, the chair of Atheist Ireland, told BreakingNews.ie that the objective of the program is to educate school children about the basic beliefs of atheism

Um, could someone educate me? Do I have basic beliefs about not believing in a God??

That's a paraphrase by whoever wrote the article. As is the reference to Educate Together being non-denominational - it is actually multi-denominational.

Atheist Ireland has always had a policy that schools should teach children about religious and nonreligious beliefs, but not teach that any particular belief is true or false.

In line with this policy (and unlike religious instruction in Catholic schools) our lessons will teach about atheism, not teach atheism.

They will be based on the Toledo guiding principles and will be taught in an objective, critical and pluralist manner.

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

IMHO the whole thing comes across as trying to promote atheism as an alternate philosophy and tradition. As an atheist I find this disingenuous, as it suggests that they're implying I'm part of their little club which I most certainly am not. In addition to being an atheist, I have a deep seated distrust for factionalism and attempts to polarise people's opinion through membership of supposedly opposing groups. That I'm an atheist is largely incidental to my philosophical and political leanings, and I object strongly to anyone suggesting atheists form a homogenous group following some kind of unwritten manifesto. These people need to come up with a new name for what ever it is they're peddling.

That type of attitude to atheism would be one of the things that a course like this should cover. As should other attitudes to atheism.

Ultimately, children should be given enough information, in an objective, critical and pluralist way, to enable them to make up their own minds rather than being told what to believe.

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

Love to see the curriculum for this one. How many pages can you fill with the words I don't believe in God

How many threads and comments can you fill with the words I don't believe in God on an Atheism & Agnosticism internet forum?

Turtwig

Michael Nugent wrote: »

How many threads and comments can you fill with the words I don't believe in God on an Atheism & Agnosticism internet forum?

Community and curriculum are a terrible comparison. We've got similar interests and beliefs but we're not being educated. Fiscal compact referendum.

Michael Nugent

Jernal wrote: »

Great, I guess for the foreseeable future I must consider myself as agnostic as this plays right into the trope that atheism is a religion. Michael, I'm wondering why what your reasoning is on this. On the face of it, it seems a very odd decision. What is the reasoning behind this?

I'll find time to answer your main question in detail later.

But why on earth would you consider yourself an agnostic (by which I assume you mean that you would no longer consider yourself an atheist) because of your beliefs about tropes?

Surely you should consider yourself an atheist or not on the basis of what you believe about the idea of gods?

Michael Nugent

Jernal wrote: »

Community and curriculum are a terrible comparison. We've got similar interests and beliefs but we're not being educated. Fiscal compact referendum.

I interpreted the original comment (How many pages can you fill with the words I don't believe in God?) as implying that there was little more to be said or understood about atheism than I don't believe in God.

If you would prefer a closer comparison, how many pages in books about atheism can you fill with the words I don't believe in God?

clairefontaine

recedite wrote: »

Are you aware that RE Religious Education is a compulsory part of the curriculum in Irish schools? So what would you have the school talk about during those couple of hours per week? Obviously they talk about religion, and now they can also put forward the alternative in an approved format too.
Hopefully at the very least, a generation will grow up knowing what the word atheist means. Too many people around today seem to think an atheist is an agent of satan.

I'd rather they learn French or German.

Yes I am we'll aware of it after a rather thorough correspondence with the Minister for Education's office.

sin_city

I think all major religions should be studied. So many reasons for this.

From a critical point of view, historical, cultural.

Not studying religion is like not mentioning the fact that people once believed the earth was flat.

It is important to know where we came from.

nagirrac

Surely what is being proposed here is to teach humanism as either an alternative or complementary basis for ethics to religion, and if so this should be welcomed. Children should be taught ethics in school, and the origins of ethics are an important part of that curriculum. The history of the evolution of human ethics is intimately linked to religion, as regardless of the contemporary arguments for belief or non belief in God/Gods, from very early in their history humans tried to understand or suggest how God/Gods might desire humans to live their lives. Humanism is a more recent philosophy which argues that ethics comes only from humanity, but is not solely in the domain of atheism as many leading humanists were also religious, and believed that ethical behavior in humans has a divine origin.

Atheists from what I can gather hold a wide range of philosophical and ethical opinions, and to propose a standard set of atheist basic beliefs seems somewhat dishonest or at the very least inaccurate. It appears the goal here is to try and raise the profile of an atheist organization by attaching it to a belief system. This defies logic as atheism as we constantly see stated on A&A is a lack of belief, so how can a lack of belief in something have "basic beliefs"? Be honest and call it what it is i.e. humanism without any religious belief.

Optimalprimerib

I think this is an awful idea. Most of the curriculum will be disproving religion so it will create a huge opportunity for bullying in the school between believers and non believers.

What do you think will be taught in this class?

smacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Ultimately, children should be given enough information, in an objective, critical and pluralist way, to enable them to make up their own minds rather than being told what to believe.

While this sounds perfectly reasonable, creating a subject that combines comparative beliefs, ethics, civics and personal philosophy is fine, but why call it atheism, or is Atheism capitalised in this context? Doesn't seem a million miles removed from SPHE in the junior cycle.

It's primarily the label I object to, rather than what is being taught. Calling the subject atheism has serious problems;

- it is ambiguous. The good book, well Merriam & Webster in this instance, defines atheism as a disbelief in the existence of deity or the doctrine that there is no deity. It doesn't include comparative belief systems, pluralism, secularism, social responsibility and whatever else will be taught. You either need to find consensus on an accepted redefinition for the term or pick something more appropriate.

- it undermines the stated goal of pluralism (you're free to believe what you want there Abdul, but read the title, it says there is no Allah, so get over yourself).

- it plays into the hands of those seeking to misrepresent atheism as antitheism, cementing the notion that atheism has an agenda, and possibly even a codified set of beliefs.

- it leaves an old school atheist such as myself in the position that they have to explain to their kids that the atheism they're been taught in school isn't actually atheism at all. Not much different from explaining that the religion being taught isn't what we believe to be true.

This subject needs a different name. IMHO, atheism it isn't.

Penn

I think this is a really bad decision. From the AI website:

As a result of studying this section, the students should:
1 have an awareness of the variety of world views in today’s culture;
2 understand the challenge posed by some of these views to religious belief;
3 be able to identify points of conflict and points of contact between the scientific and religious world views of creation

Key concepts
Reflection
• world view
• experiencing God
• atheism
• agnosticism
• secularism
• materialism
• fundamentalism
• creation

Description of content.
1. The variety of world views in modern culture, including their origin
2. The scientific world view – at odds with religion? The question of creation
3. The technological view of the world and the person
4. Challenges to religious experience (such as materialism, individualism, etc.)
5. Apathy and religious indifference.

Almost all of this is what I would prefer to see in a proper Religion class, one which discusses all religions as a concept (and the ability to practice no religion) without promoting any one of them over the other. I feel many parents may choose to send their children to ET schools rather than religious schools to give their children such an experience. Having a class on atheism will turn most of them in the other direction.

There doesn't need to be a class on atheism. There needs to be a revision on how religion is taught to children, and that's what should be focused on.

I really think this is a bad call.

Genghiz Cohen

And that concludes our intensive three-week course.

Geomy

Is AI an organisation ? or just a ideal of suggestions. ..

Is it doing well ?

Is there any dues or fees ?

How is it financially supported ?

smacl

Geomy wrote: »

Is AI an organisation ? or just a ideal of suggestions. ..

Is it doing well ?

Is there any dues or fees ?

How is it financially supported ?

Guess that depends on whether you're looking for a computer that can think for itself, you need a heifer impregnated, or your dealing an organisation espousing atheism

robindch

Given what Hibernia College were "teaching" last year to people studying to become primary school teachers:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056553324

...I think a factual course that straightens that kind of nonsense out is a great idea.

Obliq

swampgas wrote: »

Given the prevalence of religion in Irish society, I imagine a lot of kids have very little idea what atheism actually is. Look at all the posts this forum gets from adults asking very basic questions such as "How can atheists know right from wrong?" or "What do atheists think happens when they die?" or "What makes atheists stop believing in God?". And that's from adults!
"
It's not as simple as saying "An atheist doesn't believe in God - end of lesson". I imagine most children who have been educated in overtly Catholic Irish primary schools, would have a lot of questions to ask about atheism, as some of atheism's core concepts are direct contradictions of the dogma to which they have been exposed.

Yes, all that. As one of the few atheists up here who was brought up to no religion, I can safely tell you that this would have helped me. It could provide a valuable resource for parents to be able to show teachers (in RCC national schools for example) how to explain atheism to children when the inevitable questions arise (that swampgas has highlighted above). Where it will be taught, in a multidenominational setting, it is appropriate that atheist children are not just left out of the subject. I'm fully for it, and couldn't be bothered with the hangups over "My meaning of atheism is different to your meaning of atheism - how dare you hijack the word?!". I'm more concerned about the impact of oneupmanship in schools (even where different religions are being taught about, but not promoted) on children with no religion being the only ones whose (lack of) belief is not being presented as a valid choice BECAUSE it's not being presented at all.

Bannasidhe

Michael Nugent wrote: »

That's a paraphrase by whoever wrote the article. As is the reference to Educate Together being non-denominational - it is actually multi-denominational.

Atheist Ireland has always had a policy that schools should teach children about religious and nonreligious beliefs, but not teach that any particular belief is true or false.

In line with this policy (and unlike religious instruction in Catholic schools) our lessons will teach about atheism, not teach atheism.

They will be based on the Toledo guiding principles and will be taught in an objective, critical and pluralist manner.

For personal reasons I welcome this move - this weekend Hermoine told me she is thinking about believing in God because it is easier in school and living with her Opus Dei grandfather and apart from myself and her Daddy she never hears anyone say it is ok not to believe in God - all she hears is if you don't believe you will be punished. :mad:

She is in 'communion' year now and we can see the pressure on her increasing every week- it would be great if her beliefs could be validated and not either dismissed because she is too 'young' (too young to not believe but not too young to believe...wtf???) or have her threatened with punishment.

Sadly she lives in a small town in rural Limerick so there are no ET schools - just the one big 'Catholic' one.

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

Surely what is being proposed here is to teach humanism as either an alternative or complementary basis for ethics to religion, and if so this should be welcomed.........Be honest and call it what it is i.e. humanism without any religious belief.

Michael already said that the "beliefs" part was added in by the journalist (paraphrasing for effect, as they do).
I think this proposed course is to show that such concepts exist independently of religion. Including, but not confined to, the kinds of concepts that humanists espouse, such as secular ethics and the like. As such I think the course could be improved by putting "humanism" in there under its own heading, along with atheism, agnosticism and secularism.

There is a lot of overlap between humanist organizations and atheist ones, but IMO (here in Ireland at least) the humanists are less pro-active and are happy enough just to occupy the niche for performing non-religious weddings and funerals. They rely on a steady supply of atheists dropping like ripe fruit into their lap, but without actually doing anything to progress the issues. AI on the other hand seeks to actively promote secularism, the separation of church and state, freedom from unwanted religious indoctrination in public schools, removal of mandatory prayers and oaths of allegiance to gods for politicians/judiciary in public office, repeal of unjust laws allowing religious discrimination, contact with UN regarding all the above, etc etc..
In other words, you would be a long time waiting for humanists to start teaching humanism in schools.

smacl

Fair enough and more power to their respective elbows, but should they not call themselves Secularism Ireland.

recedite

Penn wrote: »

Almost all of this is what I would prefer to see in a proper Religion class...........
There doesn't need to be a class on atheism. There needs to be a revision on how religion is taught to children, and that's what should be focused on.
I really think this is a bad call.

I don't understand your objection. Its what you want, but you don't like the label "atheism"? If you are going to discuss various aspects of theism in RE class, why not devote some time to discussing various aspects of atheism and its consequences.
The consequences are actually quite important. If you reject an all-powerful deity as the founder and head of our society, then what is the basis for government, laws etc? Also the "Divine right" of kings to rule no longer exists; the civic leader is no longer the person anointed by god. We have made some progress in secularism, founding a Republic, but we have a long way to go. Compared to other republics, such as France and USA, the religion in schools issue is a bit of a joke here.