Fear of Religions...when our children are concerned

actuallylike

How do,

Right, a thread I had just opened got shut and rightly so in my eyes because it developed from something potentially sensible regarding forcing certain beliefs on others to the tired old 'go back to your old country if you don't like it'.

To any mods, I'm not trying to reopen that debate. I wanted a discussion focussing on how religion harms our children, not a particular religion. I feel the last thread delved into Muslim bashing. Now I will bash the Islam faith all day but for reasons that weren't relevant in the last thread.

My question now though is spurned from the responses (some potentially by me) about if you want to have faith in your schools, set up your own and do it. The whole issue I had a problem with was when taxpayers funded religious educated schools but the truth is deeper perhaps. I want the best for our children, they are at an age when they buy into anything and do not question it.

I, myself, at 13, was taught science for the first time. The importance of forming conclusions based on evidence then the next class taught me to disregard that and have faith. This messes up children in a big way.

So I feel that if an Islamic funded school was set up here, the fact that it wasn't state funded still wouldn't make me happy. The same way if children were been brainwashed in a Christian school or a Jewish school. I guess I'm falling into the old tirade of not wanting to sound Islamophobic when really I just want our religious free children to not be confused by Santa stories that they naturally gave up on their own.

So there it is. I don't want Islamic focussed schools in my country, privately funded or otherwise. The same way I don't want any religious schools. This isn't because I hate religion (don't get me wrong, I do) but because I care for our children. Does anyone else feel this way?

ps...little drunk, potentially ranting.

Czarcasm

actuallylike wrote: »

My question now though is spurned from the responses (some potentially by me) about if you want to have faith in your schools, set up your own and do it. The whole issue I had a problem with was when taxpayers funded religious educated schools but the truth is deeper perhaps. I want the best for our children, they are at an age when they buy into anything and do not question it.

I, myself, at 13, was taught science for the first time. The importance of forming conclusions based on evidence then the next class taught me to disregard that and have faith. This messes up children in a big way.

So I feel that if an Islamic funded school was set up here, the fact that it wasn't state funded still wouldn't make me happy. The same way if children were been brainwashed in a Christian school or a Jewish school. I guess I'm falling into the old tirade of not wanting to sound Islamophobic when really I just want our religious free children to not be confused by Santa stories that they naturally gave up on their own.

So there it is. I don't want Islamic focussed schools in my country, privately funded or otherwise. The same way I don't want any religious schools. This isn't because I hate religion (don't get me wrong, I do) but because I care for our children. Does anyone else feel this way?

I'm tempted to reply with a lazy "won't somebody think of the children!" effort, but I won't.

Instead I'll just say that I care about my own child more than I care about other people's children. I think if you're to go about making claims about children being brainwashed, etc, you're going to lose your target audience very quickly.

Nobody likes to think they are forcing torture on their children, and that's exactly what happens when you use emotive language like 'brainwashing the little children', 'I care about all the little children, I don't want to see them all messed up', etc.

What parent do you think does want that for their child? Certainly not the parents that you're aiming your message at in it's current format.

Religious people pay taxes too, and they have just as much control over how their tax contributions are spent as you do - effectively, none.

The issue isn't one of where your tax contributions are being spent and where you decide you want them spent. Your taxes as an individual are very small in proportion to the whole sum of Government income, contributions from millions of other tax payers who all have their own ideas about where the Government should be putting money.

You'll effectively achieve nothing by going after Government, but you'll achieve your aims a lot easier and quicker if you focus your efforts on what you can do to make a difference in your own locality, and showing leadership, and talking to parents in your own area.

That way you'll find out things like one child who has no books for school because their parents spent the back to school allowance on things other than books, or that parents are having to organize fundraising events for a new school roof because Government funding just isn't there.

Other people will have different and more immediate priorities than secular idealism which is all well and good in it's own right, but you have to get involved and meet the basic necessities of the children's welfare first, and get support from parents that way, before you can start introducing your own ideas, because nobody is going to listen to you if they don't see that you're offering them something in return.

That's as basic common sense realism, reasoning, and rational thought as it gets, and if you're going to claim that fantasy should be done away with, best place to start is with yourself.

jank

actuallylike wrote: »

So there it is. I don't want Islamic focussed schools in my country, privately funded or otherwise. The same way I don't want any religious schools. This isn't because I hate religion (don't get me wrong, I do) but because I care for our children. Does anyone else feel this way?

ps...little drunk, potentially ranting.

What you are essentially doing therefore is setting down a personal moral framework that you think acceptable and then forcing this framework onto parents who would feel differently. Your position is no different to the notion that one MUST have a religious education. Social engineering by legislation is not something a free society should adhere to.

jank

jank wrote: »

Your position is no different to the notion that one MUST have a religious education.

No it's not.

jank

Deleted User wrote: »

No it's not.

A great well thought out rebuttal.

Banning parents from putting their child into a school with a religious ethos is the same as banning parents from putting their children into a school with a secular ethos, even if both secular and religious schools were privately funded. Its the same thing.

Turtwig

jank wrote: »

A great well thought out rebuttal.

Banning parents from putting their child into a school with a religious ethos is the same as banning parents from putting their children into a school with a secular ethos, even if both secular and religious schools were privately funded. Its the same thing.

I wouldn't feel happy about a homeopathy clinic and any number of privately funded things but I also wouldn't feel happy if the state forcibly banned them. To use the cliched example of peace. It can't be purely political, it has to be born from a mutual desire of both parties. I'd love if homeopathy wasn't as popular as it is. However much I'd love that, forcing the state to ban it is never going to get people to understand why it's a crock of sht. It'll just alienate them and impede on their autonomy.

Same goes for Islamic schools. I don't like faith schools. Don't agree they should be banned though.

So I broadly agree with the op. As they have not mentioned forcibly legislating you made that assumption. It may pan out to be true or it may be false but it's an assumption that could easily mislead others. (It initially did for me)

SmilingLurker

I am against faith schools, but they should not be banned.

Schools should be secular in nature and should be free and open to all. After core school time if indoctrination is required (it does mean teaching of doctrine, negative associations may be well earned, but that is for another day) it should be done outside of school time at no expense to the taxpayer. It could be accommodated in schools the same way private courses are throughout the country.

Non secular free schools should get no funding at all, but should keep to standard curricula. No fobbing off of evolution or sex education. The state should not fund any fee paying or restrictive institutions. For the record I went to a fee paying school in South Dublin.

Free education is the best social mobility mechanism we have. Every should go to their local free school. Going to a privately funded religious class after school may be a choice I disagree with, but support.

I will tolerate and would not ban religion.

Vivisectus

When we move into the area of banning religious education altogether, we hit a problem area. It is very hard to objectively define where indoctrination ends and child-abuse begins.

I keep thinking back on those kids I met in Las Vegas. They were the children of some of those nutjobs led my Mr Harold Camping. In stead of being in school they were handing out religious flyers on the strip. They had been taught that Armageddon was going to happen in a few months, that God was going to destroy most of the world and kill most of the people in it, and that all they could do was try to save a few souls and hope like hell their own God would not murder them in a few months time. They were between 13 and 16 years old.

I don't think there are many people who would not consider that child-abuse. It certainly made my blood boil: what a terrible thing to do to a child! And yet, the right to teach your children your religious beliefs protects exactly this kind of thing.

But how are we to legislate against something like this? You would have to create some sort of standard for what is acceptable to teach a child and what is not... and it is hard to see how we could do that in practical terms. The result could potentially be both draconian and stifling.

To some extent we DO decide what is acceptable and what is not, however. Some "moral frameworks" are considered so universal by us that we do not tolerate teaching children something else. So anyone teaching children that torture is OK would simply not be allowed to teach.

And yet, once the religious label is applied this apparently goes out the window: if you teach a kid that God murders and tortures and that this is all A-ok then all of a sudden the very idea of making that impossible is considered persecution.

I have not yet come up with a satisfactory conclusion - I would love to protect the future versions of those kids I met in Vegas, and I really feel we have a duty to do so, and I am not convinced that stopping something awful like that is "forcing a moral framework on people". Or rather, I think it is, but that is something we do all the time anyway: it is just that we give religious ones special consideration for some reason.

actuallylike

Oooh my head

Few drinks on board last night makes me go off on a rant. thanks for the replies though. I agree with everyone above to be honest. Setting down a moral framework as much as I'd like to (everyone thinks their own morals are sound I guess) is clearly not the way to go, other than on my own children. What I was thinking to be honest was a when children are refused blood transfusions due their parents beliefs, the state steps in, why not here. But I understand that a moral view isn't really up there with rejecting medical science. I guess a compromise is acceptable like mentioned above. Faith based schools should be allowed but no contradicting facts (eveolution, etc.). That would be difficult though to monitor though. I can't help but remember my Catholic sex education when they told me that "everyone feels gay at some point in puberty, just ignore it and it'll go away". Surely a direct influence of the church's view on a susceptible, adolescent boy. Anyway, life is short and I'll worry about my own kids (if I have some).

Turtwig

Ethically the state stepping in is a bit messy. Ok, we allow it. The analogy I should have used was vaccination. I'd prefer if everyone got vaccinated but I'd never want the state to bind them into doing so. It'd have to be their own choice.

Education is a tough cookie, we already have a state curriculum. Having a curriculum is one thing banning other ideas from being taught is another. We still do it. You can't teach racism, anti-Semitism. Certain things that society just won't tolerate. (Or things that society does now tolerate but the law hasn't caught up yet so they remain legally banned). I don't think I'd be comfortable living in a society where religion wasn't tolerated. Individual welfare is important. Deciding where to draw the line in the sand between welfare of the individual, their autonomy and the welfare of others isn't easy. I'd always lean towards individual freedoms first then work backwards and keep the restrictions as limited as possible.

Morgase

It's my opinion that state-funded schools should be completely secular, rather than religious or multi-denominational. If parents want to send their kids to Sunday School, fair enough. I do think that having the religious ethos permeating so many aspects of the school day does amount to brainwashing. I'd like to see that limited to Sunday School, and I wonder just how many Irish parents would actually be bothered to bring them.

Akrasia

I am in favour of banning 'faith schools' because:
1 - I am opposed to segregating children by race and religion.
What hope do we have for an intercultural society when the children divided up and kept seperate from a young age.

Interculturalism is the sharing of a common space where diversity of culture enriches us all. (but cultural practises that do not respect the principles of equality, democracy and respect for human rights are not acceptable)

Multi-culturalism is (in my opinion) a failed experiment that in the long term, results in stratification of cultures with little interaction between ethnic groups.

2. I am opposed to indoctrination in the schools.

Children are very vulnerable to indoctrination. I believe strongly that schools should teach the kids how to think for themselves. I am not opposed to teaching about religion in schools, but I am opposed to teaching children that one religion is true. There are a lot of children growing up in fundamentalist families, so if those parents get to indoctrinate their children at home, and then get to choose a fundamentalist 'faith school', the poor kids could spend their entire lives immersed in one narrow world view, and this severely limits the childs opportunities to develop independent critical thinking skills.

Vivisectus

actuallylike wrote: »

Oooh my head

Few drinks on board last night makes me go off on a rant. thanks for the replies though. I agree with everyone above to be honest. Setting down a moral framework as much as I'd like to (everyone thinks their own morals are sound I guess) is clearly not the way to go, other than on my own children. What I was thinking to be honest was a when children are refused blood transfusions due their parents beliefs, the state steps in, why not here. But I understand that a moral view isn't really up there with rejecting medical science. I guess a compromise is acceptable like mentioned above. Faith based schools should be allowed but no contradicting facts (eveolution, etc.). That would be difficult though to monitor though. I can't help but remember my Catholic sex education when they told me that "everyone feels gay at some point in puberty, just ignore it and it'll go away". Surely a direct influence of the church's view on a susceptible, adolescent boy. Anyway, life is short and I'll worry about my own kids (if I have some).

Heheh plenty of water and something to eat is generally best:)

No-one wants the state to step in and tell us what to think. And yet, in many cases that is exactly what the state does already: teaching racism for instance is simply not permitted. We consider equality one of the basic beliefs of our state.

For some reason we all tip-toe around religion so much where this is concerned, however - me included! I am having difficulty explaining to myself why, however. It seems to be part and parcel of the special treatment religious ideas get as compared to political or philosophical ones.

If I wanted to teach sexist ideas in schools, people would have a problem with that. Put on a funny hat and do it in the name of religion, and no-one is bothered.

Akrasia

Morgase wrote: »

It's my opinion that state-funded schools should be completely secular, rather than religious or multi-denominational. If parents want to send their kids to Sunday School, fair enough. I do think that having the religious ethos permeating so many aspects of the school day does amount to brainwashing. I'd like to see that limited to Sunday School, and I wonder just how many Irish parents would actually be bothered to bring them.

Probably a lot fewer than the number of parents who bring their children to Mass every sunday, (and that's a low number)

The church know that most parents are not going to put any effort into 'faith formation' so they need to do it themselves, and the best way to get their hands on innocent children for 1000 hours a year is to control the schools and set the 'ethos'.

Brian Shanahan

Vivisectus wrote: »

But how are we to legislate against something like this? You would have to create some sort of standard for what is acceptable to teach a child and what is not

Simple, only teach stuff that we either have strong evidence for or in cases where evidence is kind of sparse (like opinions on why politician X started war Y) based off a logical rational appraisal of the available known evidence of the situation and persons involved (counter arguments based off the same methodology to be also taught).

In the case of religions, a general overview of beliefs and practises of adherents, the contents of their holy books, where they deviate from and contribute to modern ethical standards and anything else appropriate to a general balanced understanding of all religions and their lack of a rational or evidential basis to be allowed. Teaching of their impact on other areas is also allowed and encouraged, as long as it is balanced showing both bad and good. No indoctrination allowed.

I Heart Internet

actuallylike wrote: »

I, myself, at 13, was taught science for the first time. The importance of forming conclusions based on evidence then the next class taught me to disregard that and have faith. This messes up children in a big way.

In short, this is silly.

Children learn to form conclusions base don evidence as toddlers - they don't have to wait until they're 13. The notion that Science, as delivered strictly in schools, is, somehow, the silver bullet for a perfectly rational world is silly. Just as silly as thinking that Religion, as delivered in schools is, somehow the silver bullet for a perfectly moral and loving world.

Studying science and religion together is not difficult or challenging for a child. You are grossly underestimating their ability to understand the world.

smacl

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Studying science and religion together is not difficult or challenging for a child. You are grossly underestimating their ability to understand the world.

Agreed, but the question of whether teaching religion is potentially damaging to the child goes well beyond this. Specifically, indoctrinating a child with religious instruction in a religion that the child does not subscribe to could be detrimental, as you will be left in the situation where the child's parents and teachers are teaching opposing versions of the truth, which places one or other as a liar. You also have the issue that religious instruction takes time from the already busy academic timetable, as discussed here.

While I've no problem with religious instruction being taught in school, it should be solely on an optional extra curricular basis.

I Heart Internet

smacl wrote: »

....Specifically, indoctrinating a child with religious instruction in a religion that the child does not subscribe to could be detrimental, as you will be left in the situation where the child's parents and teachers are teaching opposing versions of the truth, which places one or other as a liar.

This is vastly over exaggerated. There is very little (perhaps zero) in any of the e.g. maths, science, English, Irish, History, Geography...etc courses that are in conflict with what is thought in religion classes in Irish Schools - and vice versa. Where do you think the conflict lies?

smacl wrote: »

You also have the issue that religious instruction takes time from the already busy academic timetable, as discussed here

True, but if you go down the route of evaluating all elements of the school day (particularly at primary level) with "utility" in mind you'd start drawing lines through music, playtime, PE, etc before too long.

smacl wrote: »

While I've no problem with religious instruction being taught in school, it should be solely on an optional extra curricular basis.

This ignores the reality that Roman Catholic schools, for example, are part of their parish communities. In this light, having religion as an "optional extra" makes no sense.

Vivisectus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Simple, only teach stuff that we either have strong evidence for or in cases where evidence is kind of sparse (like opinions on why politician X started war Y) based off a logical rational appraisal of the available known evidence of the situation and persons involved (counter arguments based off the same methodology to be also taught).

In the case of religions, a general overview of beliefs and practises of adherents, the contents of their holy books, where they deviate from and contribute to modern ethical standards and anything else appropriate to a general balanced understanding of all religions and their lack of a rational or evidential basis to be allowed. Teaching of their impact on other areas is also allowed and encouraged, as long as it is balanced showing both bad and good. No indoctrination allowed.

I was going to go on about how even the scientific consensus cannot be considered an objective truth, but then I thought to myself "What the HELL am I waffling about?" and realized I do not really see a downside to this at all.

Brian Shanahan

Turtwig wrote: »

Ethically the state stepping in is a bit messy. Ok, we allow it. The analogy I should have used was vaccination. I'd prefer if everyone got vaccinated but I'd never want the state to bind them into doing so. It'd have to be their own choice.

The state forcing vaccinations (after they were shown to be safe and effective of course) is perfectly a legitimate and valid use of its powers. I don't want to see any of my children (if ever I have any) go down with serious preventable illness, because some hippy idiot who thinks repeatedly filtered water and read once on the girl against flouride propoganda scare-mongering website that MMR causes cancer or autism or whatever other idiocy that she decides to peddle. Public health is far too important a matter to be letting people decide on their prejudices and uninformed opinions. Similarly the state should use its powers to enforce a secular education in all state funded schools, if you want a religiously indoctrinated education for your children let you a) pay for it yourself, and b) let it not be allowed to be accredited by any state examination board without the school being extensively vetted to ensure proper education.

Turtwig

Teaching kids the philosophy of science can imo only be a good thing. As would teaching them to be skeptical. Particularly nowadays where information is so freely available but some of it is pure fluff and misinformation but still spreads like wildfire.

I Heart Internet

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Similarly the state should use its powers to enforce a secular education in all state funded schools,

The State doesn't have this power.

smacl

I Heart Internet wrote: »

This is vastly over exaggerated. There is very little (perhaps zero) in any of the e.g. maths, science, English, Irish, History, Geography...etc courses that are in conflict with what is thought in religion classes in Irish Schools - and vice versa. Where do you think the conflict lies?

Let me see, maybe that some omniscient omnipresent deity exists and is watching us all the time, to the extent that if we do anything bad, He'll know all about it and punish us disproportionately in the long term. Excessive fear and guilt. Unhealthy and damaging in my book.

True, but if you go down the route of evaluating all elements of the school day (particularly at primary level) with "utility" in mind you'd start drawing lines through music, playtime, PE, etc before too long.

Nope, all of these have value entirely independent of religious background. Religious instruction to someone who doesn't want it has at best no value, and at worst negative value.

This ignores the reality that Roman Catholic schools, for example, are part of their parish communities. In this light, having religion as an "optional extra" makes no sense.

Yet if they became more secular as part of a transfer of patronage they would remain part of the community. It makes plenty of sense. It is also worth remembering that most members of these communities are no longer going to mass, and have generated practically no priests or nuns in many years. This rather suggests that religion is not that high on their agenda, and continuing to teach it as an integrated part of the curriculum is actually nonsensical.

I Heart Internet

smacl wrote: »

Let me see, maybe that some omniscient omnipresent deity exists and is watching us all the time, to the extent that if we do anything bad, He'll know all about it and punish us disproportionately in the long term. Excessive fear and guilt. Unhealthy and damaging in my book.

If you believe that today's religion classes produce excessive fear and guilt amongst children then I suggest that you're not overly familiar with their content.

You haven't given any example of a conflict between any non-religion class and a religion class though. Nothing that would stimulate a child to think that one teacher might not be telling the truth or causing confusion.

lazygal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If you believe that today's religion classes produce excessive fear and guilt amongst children then I suggest that you're not overly familiar with their content.

You haven't given any example of a conflict between any non-religion class and a religion class though. Nothing that would stimulate a child to think that one teacher might not be telling the truth or causing confusion.

Alive O texts encourage children to thank God for giving them life, to thank God for nature, to thank God for the wonderful world around them, and other things that are in direct conflict with science. How can a teacher teach children that a 'miracle' meant thousands were fed from a few loaves and fishes while in the next lesson teach them numeracy skills for maths? Even as a five year old my brother saw this for the nonsense it was, but got into trouble for challenging the 'miracle' stories.
Having friends who are currently negotiating the first communion merry go round I can assure you children are still, as they were in my day, making up sins for first confession and worrying about whether God saw them being bold, and they were taught these things in school.

lazygal

Thank you, God, for winter’s cold and winter’s warmth too.
Thank you, God, you care for me All the winter through.
Sign of the Cross.

Here's an example of a prayer suggested for Junior Infants classes (link: http://education.dublindiocese.ie/junior-infants/). How can a child thank God for cold and warmth while being taught how cold and warmth in the seasons actually happens?

I Heart Internet

lazygal wrote: »

Alive O texts encourage children to thank God for giving them life, to thank God for nature, to thank God for the wonderful world around them, and other things that are in direct conflict with science. How can a teacher teach children that a 'miracle' meant thousands were fed from a few loaves and fishes while in the next lesson teach them numeracy skills for maths? Even as a five year old my brother saw this for the nonsense it was, but got into trouble for challenging the 'miracle' stories.

You think the story of the loaves and the fishes is damaging children's numeracy skills? Mmmmm I think that you're not giving children (or teachers) enough credit there. And as a scientist who understands the physical world, I see zero conflict in thanking God for it and my part in it. You'll find that an awful lot of scientists are quite comfortable with this.

I Heart Internet

lazygal wrote: »

Thank you, God, for winter’s cold and winter’s warmth too.
Thank you, God, you care for me All the winter through.
Sign of the Cross.

Here's an example of a prayer suggested for Junior Infants classes (link: http://education.dublindiocese.ie/junior-infants/). How can a child thank God for cold and warmth while being taught how cold and warmth in the seasons actually happens?

God created the laws of physics when he made the universe. So learning the laws of physics and how they impact the earth's seasons is entirely in keeping with thanking God for them. Everything we learn of the physical world brings us closer to God. That's another reason why science is brilliant.

lazygal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You think the story of the loaves and the fishes is damaging children's numeracy skills? Mmmmm I think that you're not giving children (or teachers) enough credit there. And as a scientist who understands the physical world, I see zero conflict in thanking God for it and my part in it. You'll find that an awful lot of scientists are quite comfortable with this.

And you'll find a lot of children, like my brother, who have a hard time wondering why the teacher can teach facts in one lesson and beliefs in another, and then make a child feel like they've done something wrong when the child points out the obvious inconsistencies in the miracles. How can a child be taught in one lesson that God made a mountain, and in another how geophysical forces make mountains?

smacl

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You haven't given any example of a conflict between any non-religion class and a religion class though. Nothing that would stimulate a child to think that one teacher might not be telling the truth or causing confusion.

That wasn't my point though. The conflict that I'd consider damaging is what the parent is saying versus what the teacher is saying. If the teacher says God exists, and and the parent says that God does not exist, you have a problem. If the teacher as an authority figures states categorically that there is an omnipotent being watching your every move, and this being doesn't take kindly to heathens, that is potentially introducing a source of fear and confusion. If the parent then allays that fear by stating that said omnipotent being doesn't actually, and that some people have some rather strange beliefs, the child is liable to come into conflict with the teacher at a later point when they repeat this information.

The obvious solution is not to foist unwanted religious instruction on the child in the first instance.

Edit: Just thinking about it, another major area of conflict is in terms of morality, where morality from a religious basis tends to be absolutist and dogmatic, whereas morality from ethics tends to be contextual. Less of the 'though shalt not / never / ever' and more recognition of circumstance.

Vivisectus

I Heart Internet wrote: »

God created the laws of physics when he made the universe. So learning the laws of physics and how they impact the earth's seasons is entirely in keeping with thanking God for them. Everything we learn of the physical world brings us closer to God. That's another reason why science is brilliant.

It seems to me that a lot of the religious curriculum us more or less geared to produce exactly this kind of statement, helping people to deal with the inevitable cognitive dissonance that results from having to believe in ancient fairy-tales and science at the same time.

At no point does it trouble you that the same being that made science so awesome "when he made the world" has to be something that exists outside of the laws of nature - which ultimately means that science is more or less meaningless. After all, any moment we could just see some god-magic that throws off all our careful analysis and observation!

But many people are carefully trained to compartmentalize these different ideas. Catholic schools do a great job, spending countless hours carefully insulating the religious beliefs they instill in children from any jarring contact with reality. The result is a statement like the one above: one that features a massive internal contradiction that remains entirely unexamined.

nagirrac

lazygal wrote: »

Alive O texts encourage children to thank God for giving them life, to thank God for nature, to thank God for the wonderful world around them, and other things that are in direct conflict with science.

There is no conflict between belief in God and science, much less a direct conflict. Assertions that there is a direct conflict is a strong atheist myth. The statement that belief in God is in direct conflict with science is ironically actually good ammunition for the religious to maintain the status quo in Irish public schools, as they don't wish to have their children "indoctrinated" with atheist myths .

Children need to be thought in a neutral fashion and not from a religious or atheist bias. Religion belongs to a field of study called metaphysics, which explores the various hypotheses on the ultimate nature of reality, of which there are many, many hypotheses. Metaphysics by its very nature is speculative, although much of it is very well reasoned as is most of philosophy, whereas science is solely based on physically testable predictions. Science explores the natural world using the tools we have currently, which changes all the time as our tools evolve. Where there is conflict is between a subset of religious believers who hold fast to literal interpretations of some religious texts that are in conflict with modern scientific findings. The flip side of this is there are religious texts, Hindu and Buddhist for example, that are very compatible with modern science, in fact Hindu cosmology is in many ways startlingly compatible with modern science.

I had this conversation recently with a visiting family member, who was raised an atheist but who has developed an interest in the God question. Her exact words were "I would like to believe in God, but science says there's no God". In answering, I took a science book off my shelf and read the following passage to her from a student of Hawkins, and highly regarded cosmologist: "While the classical world we observe in which particles have definite positions, may be one of the consistent worlds described by a solution to the theory, Dowker and Kent's results showed that there had to be an infinite number of other world's too... Dowker concluded that if the consistent histories theory is correct, we have no right to deduce from the existence of fossils now that dinosaurs roamed the planet a hundred million years ago"

That's a scientist talking, not a fundamentalist Christian.

Brian Shanahan

Vivisectus wrote: »

It seems to me that a lot of the religious curriculum us more or less geared to produce exactly this kind of statement, helping people to deal with the inevitable cognitive dissonance that results from having to believe in ancient fairy-tales and science at the same time.

At no point does it trouble you that the same being that made science so awesome "when he made the world" has to be something that exists outside of the laws of nature - which ultimately means that science is more or less meaningless. After all, any moment we could just see some god-magic that throws off all our careful analysis and observation!

But many people are carefully trained to compartmentalize these different ideas. Catholic schools do a great job, spending countless hours carefully insulating the religious beliefs they instill in children from any jarring contact with reality. The result is a statement like the one above: one that features a massive internal contradiction that remains entirely unexamined.

His rationalising is even more troublesome than what you've pointed out. He's basically twisting everything we know about the universe, how it came about and how it works in order to fit that knowledge into his preconceived notions of reality. And in order to do that he is actually leaving a lot of the stuff we know out, like the matter that nothing we've discovered about the universe indicates that god is necessary or even desirable in order that the universe be here. Or that every thing we discover through science is one less thing that can be ascribed to "goddidit", because while what we know about the universe doesn't rule out the existence of god, it does make it extremely unlikely (on the principle of Ockham's Razor, in that the universe as we understand it is more complicated to explain {never mind less explanatory and comprehensible} with god in the explanation than without).

To give the true horror to his words, if you substituted "Big Brother" for "God" in his sentence, he would be almost qouting O'Brien's speech to Winston Smith in Room 101 about how the Party created reality at the end of Nineteen Eighty-Four*.

*P.S. Will Self is a big eejit, and it is he who is the ****ty writer not, Eric Arthur Blair.

Vivisectus

nagirrac wrote: »

There is no conflict between belief in God and science, much less a direct conflict. Assertions that there is a direct conflict is a strong atheist myth. The statement that belief in God is in direct conflict with science is ironically actually good ammunition for the religious to maintain the status quo in Irish public schools, as they don't wish to have their children "indoctrinated" with atheist myths .

Children need to be thought in a neutral fashion and not from a religious or atheist bias. Religion belongs to a field of study called metaphysics, which explores the various hypotheses on the ultimate nature of reality, of which there are many, many hypotheses. Metaphysics by its very nature is speculative, although much of it is very well reasoned as is most of philosophy, whereas science is solely based on physically testable predictions. Science explores the natural world using the tools we have currently, which changes all the time as our tools evolve. Where there is conflict is between a subset of religious believers who hold fast to literal interpretations of some religious texts that are in conflict with modern scientific findings. The flip side of this is there are religious texts, Hindu and Buddhist for example, that are very compatible with modern science, in fact Hindu cosmology is in many ways startlingly compatible with modern science.

I had this conversation recently with a visiting family member, who was raised an atheist but who has developed an interest in the God question. Her exact words were "I would like to believe in God, but science says there's no God". In answering, I took a science book off my shelf and read the following passage to her from a student of Hawkins, and highly regarded cosmologist: "While the classical world we observe in which particles have definite positions, may be one of the consistent worlds described by a solution to the theory, Dowker and Kent's results showed that there had to be an infinite number of other world's too... Dowker concluded that if the consistent histories theory is correct, we have no right to deduce from the existence of fossils now that dinosaurs roamed the planet a hundred million years ago"

That's a scientist talking, not a fundamentalist Christian.

Indeed - there is a small gap in there that, if we were so disposed, we could try to squeeze a God into. This must mean there is no conflict at all!

By the same token there is absolutely no conflict between what you present and my theory that a small gnome lives in my sock drawer and steals only left socks.

Never mind that it has never been observed itself, and that we have never observed anything for which a sock-stealing gnome would be the best and most effective explanation! What is important is that because science does not rule out the existence of invisible sock-stealing gnomes, there is absolutely no conflict between my positive belief in the gnome's existence and me professing to believe the scientific method is a good way of exploring our universe and finding out how it probably works.

I am sure that we can find some fashionable quantum effect and pull that way out of context and find that it is remarkably consistent with some of my sock-stealing gnome beliefs!

With the belief in gnomes thus comfortably insulated from any unpleasant contact with reality we can continue to hold them and proclaim them to be compatible with science, demonstrating that where these kind of beliefs are concerned, a little sophistry goes a long way.

Akrasia

I Heart Internet wrote: »

This is vastly over exaggerated. There is very little (perhaps zero) in any of the e.g. maths, science, English, Irish, History, Geography...etc courses that are in conflict with what is thought in religion classes in Irish Schools - and vice versa. Where do you think the conflict lies?

Teaching religion promotes superstitious thinking in young children. They're being told from the age of 4 that a man was able to magic a bit of bread and fish into a lot of bread and fish, and that the same man could turn water into wine and raise people from the dead.

Education should teach critical thinking.

Also, religion closes down the mind to scientific enquiry.
Child 'why are there trees?'
A1 - Because god made them...

A2 - Because all life on this planet is in a constant struggle for survival and for over a billion years, since the first self replicating organisms emerged in the oceans, life has been finding niches where it can survive. Animals and plants all came from the same ancestors, The earliest life absorbed nutrients from the sea and didn't need to hunt or make it's own food, but when competition for resources increased, some life evolved to be able to move towards it's food or to capture it, and other life evolved to anchor to a surface and filter nutrients that floated past. There were benefits to each strategy so they both evolved into more and more sophisticated versions constantly competing for resources so that any time one species had an advantage, it drove other plants and animals to either evolve defences/attacks or to become extinct.

Trees are a particular form of plant life that evolved to be long lasting strong and tall in order to get the most light from the sun, while also protecting themselves from being eaten by insects, fungi, animals and other plants. Trees compete with each other for resources so where there is good healthy soil and lots of sun and rain, the trees grow dense and tall and we have jungles and rainforests. Where the soil is poor or there is little sun or rain, the trees grow small and sparce because bigger denser forests would not survive for very long......

The world around us is far far too interesting. Any question to which the answer is 'God did it' is such a wasted opportunity to learn and explore.

And this applies not just to science, but also to philosophy and morality and the so called 'big questions' about how ought we behave and 'why are we really here'

Akrasia

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You think the story of the loaves and the fishes is damaging children's numeracy skills? Mmmmm I think that you're not giving children (or teachers) enough credit there. And as a scientist who understands the physical world, I see zero conflict in thanking God for it and my part in it. You'll find that an awful lot of scientists are quite comfortable with this.

Because they are compartmentalising

Scientists who include god in any of their scientific work are not doing their job properly. But given that science, as a discipline, incorporates All of Nature, then there is clearly a conflict between believing in any kind of interventionist deity, and being a scientist.

Reporter -Why didn't the CERN LHC find further evidence to explain Dark Matter?
Head of CERN - Uh, because it wasn't part of 'God's plan'. Maybe we did find evidence, but god hid it from our sensors, or maybe god is waiting for one particular 'chosen' scientist to reveal the truth to.....

Akrasia

I Heart Internet wrote: »

God created the laws of physics when he made the universe. So learning the laws of physics and how they impact the earth's seasons is entirely in keeping with thanking God for them. Everything we learn of the physical world brings us closer to God. That's another reason why science is brilliant.

What good is thanking god?
If we don't thank god will he take our physics away? (or merely punish us forever?)

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

God created the laws of physics when he made the universe. So learning the laws of physics and how they impact the earth's seasons is entirely in keeping with thanking God for them. Everything we learn of the physical world brings us closer to God. That's another reason why science is brilliant.

[sarcasm]I thank god for all the natural disasters he/she/it causes and the millions of innocent deaths he/she/it actions have caused, after all these are natural creations and the world wouldn't be what it is today without them and it would be wrong not to thank god for all these deaths.......after all its all gods work.

I also thank god for the creating physics which has allowed nuclear fusion and by extension the creation of nuclear weapons, he/she/it causes ensured the weapons worked correctly for the men that made them and ensured that they properly killed or caused cancer in the people they were used on.[/sarcasm]

I Heart Internet, I hope you thank god for all the people that die as well, its wrong to thank him for one aspect of nature and then not thank it for another just because you are uncomfortable with the natural order of things.

Akrasia

Cabaal wrote: »

[sarcasm]I thank god for all the natural disasters he/she/it causes and the millions of innocent deaths he/she/it causes actions have caused, after all these are natural creations and the world wouldn't be what it is today and it would be wrong not to thank god for all these deaths.......after all its all gods work.

I also thank god for the creation of nuclear fusion and by extension the creation of nuclear weapons, he/she/it causes ensured the weapons worked correctly for the men that made them and ensured that they properly killed or caused cancer in the people they were used on.[/sarcasm]

I Heart Internet, I hope you thank god for all the people that die as well, its wrong to thank him for one aspect of nature and then not thank it for another just because you are uncomfortable with the natural order of things.

Excellent points ([nerd]we won't mention the fact that the Atom bombs dropped in WW2 were Fission bombs, not Fusion bombs.. though world war 3 will probably end in a cloud of fusion thermo nuclear explosions[/nerd])

actuallylike

I Heart Internet wrote: »

In short, this is silly.

Children learn to form conclusions base don evidence as toddlers - they don't have to wait until they're 13. The notion that Science, as delivered strictly in schools, is, somehow, the silver bullet for a perfectly rational world is silly. Just as silly as thinking that Religion, as delivered in schools is, somehow the silver bullet for a perfectly moral and loving world.

Studying science and religion together is not difficult or challenging for a child. You are grossly underestimating their ability to understand the world.

It's not silly for me, or for others I'd imagine. My point was that from birth we are always questioning things because we don't know anything, that's natural. But from around age 12+ (the wisdom tooth years), we start to question things with a bit more thought. Science been taught at that time gives us the tools to do that in some cases and we are taught the importance of finding conclusions based on certain things. Experiment after experiment it is drilled into you and the very next class you are told to ignore all that and go against what we've just been taught.

Now I know that certain classes have rules that contradict the others, languages, etc. and it is easy to separate them but in this case, at that age, critical thought should be encouraged in all classes. Debates and opinions should be explored all the time, in my opinion it is one of the best ways for a child to grow. I can't tell you the amount of times in RE that curious and confused children's questions were immediately refuted because the answer was simply to have faith. And kids are trusting at that age, the critical thought is trying to break free but they learn to repress it...but only in certain religiously orientated classes.

Hotblack Desiato

Akrasia wrote: »

Excellent points ([nerd]we won't mention the fact that the Atom bombs dropped in WW2 were Fission bombs, not Fusion bombs.. though world war 3 will probably end in a cloud of fusion thermo nuclear explosions[/nerd])

[nerd]so-called 'H-bombs' actually derive the majority of their power from fission - fast neutron fission of the predominantly [latex]^2^3_9^8_2U[/latex] natural uranium tamper and casing, this fast fission creates the vast majority of the fallout as well.

A neutron bomb is really just a very miniaturised (i.e. neutron boosted) fission core with a small fusion component to generate the fast neutrons, and no secondary fission stage to absorb them.


Back on topic - anyone who thanks god for anything nice, should also thank god for ebola, cancer, bilharzia and famine.

Something along these lines, although William S. was decrying 'Thanksgiving' as a tenet of American culture rather than a religious festival. I sincerely doubt he had any time for religion either, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLSveRGmpIE

nagirrac

Akrasia wrote: »

Scientists who include god in any of their scientific work are not doing their job properly.

There are no scientists who include God in their scientific work. Unless a hypothesis can be experimentally tested against predictions, and at least in principle falsified, then it is not science and belongs in some other subject category. Examples, excluding the God question, are multiverses and string theory, for which there isn't a shred of verifiable scientific evidence, and of which the majority of scientists regard as metaphysical speculation.

Akrasia wrote: »

But given that science, as a discipline, incorporates All of Nature, then there is clearly a conflict between believing in any kind of interventionist deity, and being a scientist.

Nope, there's no conflict for the scientists involved, all bright and some exceptionally bright people who understand the difference between science and religion. It's certainly the goal of science to study all of nature, but whether it can or not is highly questionable. Why would we expect with our primate brains to be able to understand all of nature? We already know for more than a century that nature does not conform to our expectations of it's behavior. To quote Sean Carroll on the scientific theory that has been experimentally verified more so than any other, "what we can observe about the world is only a tiny subset of what exists". The important word in the sentence is the one in italics.

The "conflict" you refer to is only a conflict for some atheists, admittedly a minority, those that Sam Harris refers to as "fundamentalist, neo humanistic, secular atheist militants" (tic of course as he has been called this himself), as not alone do they not have any concept of God, they abhor the concept of God.

nagirrac

Vivisectus wrote: »

By the same token there is absolutely no conflict between what you present and my theory that a small gnome lives in my sock drawer and steals only left socks.

Surely you can do better than Russell's teapot?:D

The belief that science and religion are in conflict is a 19th century idea that is only shared today by a few attention seeking self promoting militant atheists like Dawkins and Dennett, and their rabid following, most of whose knowledge of science or religion could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

For those that actually want to consider the question seriously, the attached article has the full spectrum of opinions. The one that I find myself most in agreement with is Kenneth Miller, professor of Biology at Brown and a RC, who testified in the Dover trial against ID. It's worth a read.

http://edge.org/conversation/does-the-empirical-nature-of-science-contradict-the-revelatory-nature-of-faith

Hotblack Desiato

Inevitably scientific knowledge will increase over time however and the space for religion (i.e. made up answers to stuff we don't know) will decrease - god of the gaps.

inocybe

don't forget there's more to a religious school than just religion class. Having recently sat through a 'sex education' talk for 12 year olds, had to spend the car trip home undoing some of the rubbish.

nagirrac

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Inevitably scientific knowledge will increase over time however and the space for religion (i.e. made up answers to stuff we don't know) will decrease - god of the gaps.

I agree scientific knowledge will increase over time. However. the next likely breakthrough in theoretical physics will make us wishing for QM in terms of astonishment and things we cannot fathom. Religion has nothing to do with science as a subject, but it was religion that promoted and more importantly funded science. The scientific method, as we know it today, was started out by "Islamists", and then developed by Christians, thus all of science has a religious root. It is the desire for understanding our universe that drove religion from the get go, and science is not a replacement, it is one mode of study.

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

There is no conflict between belief in God and science, much less a direct conflict.

That depends how you look at it. There is certainly a conflict between the methodology of science and the claim there is a god for example. Because the methodology of science demands that you be able to present some evidence and that your claim be testable and falsifiable.

Take for example your pet claim that reincarnation exists and has been observed to occur. Your SOLE evidence for this was to point at a SINGLE woman who was able to speak a language YOU personally think she should not be able to speak.

Now the embarrassing fact aside that it turns out there actually was good reasons why she should have rudimentary knowledge of the language and her grasp of that language was described as "child like"...... you at no point offered evidence for your claims nor are your claims falsifiable. They were just outright assertions which left you red faced and retreating from the thread.

So yes there is a conflict there. Making assertions, especially unfalsifiable ones, without any evidence is a direct conflict with the Scientific message. And with basic rationality in my opinion too.

The problem for you and your religious cohort is that the PLAYGROUND of religion is and seemingly always has been human ignorance. Where human ignorance exists the god of the gaps is played. Science however is consistently, if slowly, eroding human ignorance. That is.... it is directly claiming the real estate in which religion operates. How you can imagine, defended by nothing but a few throw away comments about Richard Dawkins and anyone who likes him, that there is NO conflict therefore is opaque to me. And, seemingly to you too.

Try slowly but surely taking someones land some time and all the while say to their face "there is no conflict here". Count the days for me before they take that non existent conflict TO your face. Forcefully.

nagirrac wrote: »

Children need to be thought in a neutral fashion and not from a religious or atheist bias.

I do not entirely agree. We do not inoculation children with a rainbow of products in an unbiased fashion but we carefully CHOOSE which ones to give them in a cost-benefit analysis of where the problems lie and what inoculations will address them.

Subscription to unsubstantiated ideas is a problem and we can inject some bias into a curriculum which can be designed to address that. If (for a thought experiment example) a lack of knowledge of mathematics and a lack of knowledge of the known philisophical fallacies.... how to identify them, avoid them and so forth...... is found to be leading to theism then I see no good argument for not ensuing our curriculum heavily include education on these matters.

And technically that would be an "atheist bias" to use your propaganda linguistics on it. Because it very much would be biasing the curriculum to avoid children subscribing to nonsense, unsubstantiated claims, and fallacious reasoning. All of which are the bed rocks of the claim there is a god.

nagirrac wrote: »

There are no scientists who include God in their scientific work.

The creationist crowd would beg to differ, or "intelligent design" as they have re branded themselves. Because they do all their scientific work and inquiry on the base assumption that there is an intelligent designer behind it.

Perhaps you mean to suggest that such people.... the Micheal Behe types of the world.... are therefore not real scientists at all? Perhaps in this we would be entirely agreed for once.

nagirrac wrote: »

Why would we expect with our primate brains to be able to understand all of nature?

But equally why should we expect it not to be? I prefer to hold no expectations either way and just to continue in the attempt itself. Some people like to do the work. Other people like to sit and offer mere commentary on whether they personally feel the people doing the work will complete it or not.

Its obvious which group my respect lies with.

nagirrac wrote: »

Surely you can do better than Russell's teapot?

Should one have to? The quality of a counter argument is always going to be constrained by the argument it is to be applied to. The Russells Teapot argument is quite effective when used correctly to rebut just the right kind of theist canards. There is no requirement to improve upon it that I have been made aware of. Much less by you.

Vivisectus

The scientific method, as we know it today, was started out by "Islamists", and then developed by Christians, thus all of science has a religious root

It is leaps and bounds like these that get you into trouble again and again. The art of ice-cream making was started by Catholics, thus ice-cream has catholic roots?

it is one mode of study.

If you set the bar low enough, then yes indeed, religion and science all study the nature of reality. The problem with that is that it works equally well for just about anything, however, and you now share that incredibly wide space of "things that are different modes of study" with anything you could care to name. There is no concept too bizarre or mundane for this category - in fact it is hard to imagine what it would take to be excluded from it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Vivisectus wrote: »

It is leaps and bounds like these that get you into trouble again and again. The art of ice-cream making was started by Catholics, thus ice-cream has catholic roots?

The user has tried this little feat of acrobatics on quite a few topics. He tried to show, for example, that the practice of meditation is by definition a religious practice. His SOLE support for this claim was that the first record HE can find (but then could not cite as it happens) of people practicing it was in a religious context.

The user clearly does not understand the meaning of "root" in this context. He clearly believes that A religious person engaging in X means that X has a religious root. Without ever having to show a causal or meaningful link between the two. It is enough for the user that the two things existed in the same person for him to claim that X has roots in Y.

That the two might be unconnected in any way, merely circumstantial, never crosses his mind. Nor does he seem to.... any time he asserts that X has roots in Y.... stop to consider that Y might have roots in X either.... though in THIS context at least he appears to be right to do so..... but as a general practice leaping to one without considering the other simply belies his ongoing obvious biases.

nagirrac

Vivisectus wrote: »

It is leaps and bounds like these that get you into trouble again and again.

It trouble with what or whom exactly? I'm in trouble because I don't share the strong atheist worldview, as if it were the only worldview? Should I be concerned? Are the militant atheist thought police monitoring me ?:D

No leaps nor bounds. It is accepted by most science history scholars that what we know of as the modern scientific method, based on observation, hypothesis and experiment, had its roots in the Muslim world in the 8th - 11th centuries, and was developed in Catholic founded universities like Oxford and Cambridge, among many others. Those that deny this are usually blinded by their abhorrence for all things religious, Dawkins for example who flails at religion and the religious, while ignoring the fact that his place of learning was established by his predecessors who were inspired by their deep religious faith.

Vivisectus wrote: »

The art of ice-cream making was started by Catholics, thus ice-cream has catholic roots?

Nothing to do with what I posted, but a nice strawman nonetheless, and goes well with Russell's teapot . The point is not that the individual scientists were religious, the point is that religion founded and funded science. If religion were interested in controlling the population and adhering solely to scripture, why would it found and fund universities of learning devoted to studying the natural world throughout western civilization? The reason is they were inspired by their belief in God, and had the desire to understand how their creator or great geometer did his work.

Vivisectus wrote: »

If you set the bar low enough, then yes indeed, religion and science all study the nature of reality.

Nowhere did I equate religion and science, nor science and any other discipline. What I have consistently said is they are different subjects, or as Stephen Jay Gould described them "non-overlapping magisteria". Science is the only reliable discipline to study the natural world. If you adhere to the metaphysical position of materialistic reductionism or physicalism as is more contemporary, then I agree there is no place for God or religion, so it is unsurprising that the majority of scientists today are atheists. Although a scientist, I don't adhere to this worldview, as the evidence against it is too compelling to me, so I see reality through a different lens. However, all metaphysical positions on the ultimate nature of reality are problematic, and easily debunked by available evidence. The reality is that most people, whether religious or atheist, adhere to worldviews that are increasingly unsupported by the evidence. What this tells us is that our various worldviews are incorrect, unsurprisingly given we are a species that just evolved from an ape like ancestor a few million years ago.

Vivisectus

No leaps nor bounds. It is accepted by most science history scholars that what we know of as the modern scientific method, based on observation, hypothesis and experiment, had its roots in the Muslim world in the 8th - 11th centuries, and was developed in Catholic founded universities like Oxford and Cambridge, among many others. Those that deny this are usually blinded by their abhorrence for all things religious, Dawkins for example who flails at religion and the religious, while ignoring the fact that his place of learning was established by his predecessors who were inspired by their deep religious faith.

Was first explored in a muslim environment = is based on religion? That's a pretty big leap. As is your attributing some sort of irrational anti-religious sentiments to those that do not share your view. As well as pulling the ole dawkins out of the hat. The man is a biologist. Pretty good one too.

Nothing to do with what I posted, but a nice strawman nonetheless, and goes well with Russell's teapot . The point is not that the individual scientists were religious, the point is that religion founded and funded science.

There, you see that thing you did there? Where you say "religion funded science"? That is what I was referring to.

If religion were interested in controlling the population and adhering solely to scripture, why would it found and fund universities of learning devoted to studying the natural world throughout western civilization? The reason is they were inspired by their belief in God, and had the desire to understand how their creator or great geometer did his work.

And now you are jumping off even further, using sweeping generalizations as a pole-vault. Will I make up a little revisionist narrative next? We could pretend that all of enlightenment thinking "has it's roots in atheism" and represents a slow climb away from the dull, dark superstitious religious past?

Nowhere did I equate religion and science, nor science and any other discipline. What I have consistently said is they are different subjects, or as Stephen Jay Gould described them "non-overlapping magisteria".

That sure is a fancy word to describe compartmentalization.

Science is the only reliable discipline to study the natural world. If you adhere to the metaphysical position of materialistic reductionism or physicalism as is more contemporary, then I agree there is no place for God or religion, so it is unsurprising that the majority of scientists today are atheists. Although a scientist, I don't adhere to this worldview, as the evidence against it is too compelling to me

And yet I have not seen any evidence yet: just hazy quantum-mysticism mixed with some (deeply mistaken) name-dropping. You even claimed that Kierkegaard thought religious faith was rational.

, so I see reality through a different lens.

That we can agree on.

However, all metaphysical positions on the ultimate nature of reality are problematic, and easily debunked by available evidence. The reality is that most people, whether religious or atheist, adhere to worldviews that are increasingly unsupported by the evidence. What this tells us is that our various worldviews are incorrect, unsurprisingly given we are a species that just evolved from an ape like ancestor a few million years ago.

...and we are back to sweeping and slightly grandiose generalizations - essentially claims. Would you care to produce this compelling evidence?