nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Should religion be taught in schools?

Tehachapi

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

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

ad hominem

m1 motorway

leaving cert 2011

more atheism...

look at me i'm atheist!

chicken priest

burn in hell atheists

jesus saves

look at me i'm religious!

teach kids about zeus!!!

get down on your knees

please jesus

same thread diff day

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

religion thread #51350135

i'm right so stfu

spit on me jesus

but if you're up there

save me superman!

ah is new atheist forum

Comments

Ghost Buster

Freddie59 wrote: »

Should people be, let's say, anti-parent because of the level of parental abuse in this country at present. There have been many instances of this in the past few years. Are ALL parents then abusers? One to ponder.

And what, precisely, is racism? There are many different forms; from the "positive discrimination" in favour of certain ethnic groups to the marginalisation of indigenous Irish people should they dare to question such practices. Is this not discrimination in reverse? If an Irish native dares to question preferential treatment (above what a normal citizen receives) to a particular group or nationality they are immediately classed as racist. What utter horse shyte.

People of other races and parents are individuals. The catholic church is a single institution where the rot starts at the top. I did not mention individuals but the catholic Church as a single entity. Poor comparison

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

As I've mentioned already. I think that this quote below is hugely significant:

Evidence from over 1,200 studies and 400 reviews has shown an association between faith and a number of positive health benefits, including protection from illness, coping with illness, and faster recovery from it. Of the studies reviewed in the definitive analysis, (3) 81% showed benefit and only 4% harm.

The problem here is that it does not cite a single one of this magical "1200 studies". Not a single one. If I am the only one to see an issue with that then clearly the statistical knowledge of Jakkass here is worse than I feared.

The second issue with this quote is that it simply throws out the word "benefit". WHAT benefit exactly? How is it being measures? What does it mean in this context? For example if people near death were worried about what god would do to them in the afterlife, and Christian faith helped them allay that fear, then the "benefit" here is just that faith was used to solve the problem that faith in fact caused in the first place. "Benefit" is too vague and convenient word to use and leave entirely unexplored.

One wonders given their shared penchant for talking about large amounts of studies and not referencing a single one of them... whether philologos/Jakkass had a hand in actually writing this blog post which he so happily links to.

philologos wrote: »

The article even goes through some of the difficulties and examines the methodology behind many of the studies:

2. The problem of proving causality

This is the one piece of honesty in the article and from philologos/Jakkass here. There is indeed a problem with establishing causality, and neither the article nor philologos/Jakkass solve it. Mentioning it and moving on is useful but only to a small degree.

SAYING you applied corrective measures, normalisation and other methodologies does not mean you did alas, and that is a BIG failure of the blog post itself. They CLAIM to have done so... but how.... when... where.... for what factors.... are all left to the fantasy of the reader..... one thing we should learn is if a study, or in this case a Blog Post, claims they normalised for certain factors but entirely run away from telling you which ones or how... you can instantly bin the Study/Blog.

Someone tell me, for example as this lack in the Blog Post is Glaring, how they normalised for the sense of "community" that people get when they are in a church or volunteer group. Being part of something, of a community, the mutual love and support that one garners from such a situation... all have beneficial effects on "health". So how was this normalised for in the results and the effect of "Faith" (beneficial or otherwise) seperated from the effect of "community" in order to show it WAS faith having any beneficial effects at all???

Something tells me an answer from Jakkass/philologos on that will not be forthcoming today, or ever.

philologos wrote: »

That's why I'm seriously wondering if people actually read it or if they fobbed it off immediately.

.... which is why IM seriously wondering if people actually read it or do they selectively quote the parts that sound good to them as lay men to the world of statistics... and pretend that these blog posts are actual studies when they are anything but.

And given the validity of my concerns I'm seriously wondering if people actually read them or if they fobbed them off immediately.

Ghost Buster

Freddie59 wrote: »

In fairness, take a deep breath and read that again!

In fairness i did and i think you need to learn the difference between a secular republic with no official state religion and a country with an official state religion.
By your use of stats ireland is also officially a white country..Yes?

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

It's a good presentation of the current research out there and it looks at it in quite a thorough manner. For example it admits that prayer studies are inconclusive at present:

I would like to transcribe quickly (apologies for slight changes or spelling) the words of Neil deGrasse Tyson to deal with this joke of a statement. The article was neither thorough nor systematic. Suggesting that the research on Prayer is at some kind of “Jurys out” point right now is just a joke.

Here are the words that say it better than me. The words are in response to being asked if Cell Phone Use causes damage due to radioactivity but can be equally applied to the question of whether Prayer has any actual effect:

There is a very important rule of science. You can only measure within the certainties of your measurement device. Here is what happens: If you are trying to measure a phenomenon that does not exist the variations in your measurement will occasionally give you a positive signal. If your idea is that A causes B a paper gets written about that result and people get concerned. These are the phenomenon of a no result.

However when you actually have A causing B the signal is huge and it is repeatable in time and in place.

There simply is no significant signal coming from studies that Prayer has any effect at all. The result is just not there in the papers. The use of that lack of result to suggest the Jury is somehow still out on the issue is just a canard and one that people should be aware of.

These studies are not "inconclusive" as the user above wants to paint them. The studies simply have not shown a result and so the idea that prayer has any effect can be disregarded as unsubstantiated.

The only positive signal I am aware of to come out of studies of prayer is that telling people you are praying for them is actually harmful to the psychological well being of the person concerned.

SeanW

I found a pretty good video about how religion survives:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MartinJWillett#p/u/5/PAE2J38eD-U

Under no circumstances should children be brainwashed with this garbage in school.

nozzferrahhtoo

An interesting comparison that. It is indeed no wonder that ours schools are the battle grounds of bad ideas that people have no evidence for. Sell your lies into the minds of children early and they are harder to remove later on. No wonder the religious prey on them so fervently. No wonder users like philologos are willing to twist, lie and trick in order to subject Children to these ideas.... safe in the knowledge that later in life it will not matter that it was all lies, the idea will for a lot of people stick anyway.

Azureus

I think religion should be integrated into history classes to be honest. It gives rhyme and reason to a lot of events that have happened in the past, as well as allowing people to understand a lot of imagery etc that we are bombarded with on a daily basis. Knowledge of various religions is very important imo, but as a social construct as opposed to a methodoly and a faith. Teaching religion as in preaching catholicism (for example) is plain wrong imo, unless you have chosen to go to/send your kids to a Catholic school and its your choice for them to become indoctrinated into a religion without knowledge and personal choice.

nozzferrahhtoo

Totally agreed. The subject of religion itself should be taught, not as something that is true, but as a social and historical phenomena around the world.

Parts of it could indeed be integrated into other classes better. For example the fact we study things like Shakespeare and Milton in English class yet we do not study the Bible is... forgive the pun.... just a sin given how heavily influenced they were by it.

Teaching things like the idea there actually is a god however, that is just plain wrong and in many ways just plain creepy.