Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism classes in our schools to add balance.

  • 24-01-2012 10:52AM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Out for a nice meal last night with my wife (Chinese New Year and all that) and we got talking about her growing up in a communism country and the classes she attended. She told me that there was Atheism Classes, I was kinda intrigued as to what was thought. Essentially they were been told that Priests were scamming them and the dangers of getting involved in religion.

    Do you guys/gals feel that a similar class could be introduced in this country as a balance to religious study. And let the kids make an informed decision.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    No, that's a ridiculous idea.


  • Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Louisa Wrong Furnace


    a general psychology class, sure

    some brainwashing anti-religion class, no, that's stupid


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    I'm not suggesting a brainwashing class but a class to counter balance an argument that God may or may not exist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,980 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Rather than introducing a class for balance, the religion class they already have should be balanced. Teaching about religion, all religion, as a concept some people believe in, rather than "This is the truth and this one religion is the only right one"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting a brainwashing class but a class to counter balance an argument that God may or may not exist.
    Telling kids that priests are "scamming" them is not bring balance.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Kids shouldn't be told in school that religion is true or false. The main difference between a good education and a bad one is that kids should be taught not what to think, but how to think.

    A comparative religion class that addresses different religions from around the world and how different cultures believe is of quite a lot of use, as is a moral philosophy class. But Christian Doctrine or atheism? No, thanks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Telling kids that priests are "scamming" them is not bring balance.

    MrP

    Again I am not suggesting we adopt the communist Lenin philosophy. But it is interesting that brainwashing was mentioned.

    So you guys would be more amenable to religious classes being dropped than a counter point being offered?


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Do you guys/gals feel that a similar class could be introduced in this country as a balance to religious study. And let the kids make an informed decision.

    The ideologies of Chairman Mao are not something we should give any serious credence to.


  • Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators Posts: 11,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭MarkR


    Science class?


  • Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Louisa Wrong Furnace


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    So you guys would be more amenable to religious classes being dropped than a counter point being offered?[/I]

    comparative religion or no religion. not two different forms of doctrine until they dont know if they're coming or going
    a little more maths and science in general would be better


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    MarkR wrote: »
    Science class?

    LOL. I don't think they stretch that far. Besides i cannot recall science class in Primary School.:p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    Not a very good idea. How does one teach atheism anyway? Atheism is a failure, a refusal to believe the unbelievable, to accept as fact something for which there is no proof and could never be any proof.

    It would be much better to remove religious classes from schools altogether. Schools are places where children are supposed to learn how to think, not have their heads stuffed with all kinds of bosh about non-corporeal beings. :rolleyes:

    Let them go to churches to learn about religion, if that's what their parents ill-advisedly want.:D

    By all means let schools have lessons where children are given outline introductions to the contents of the major world ideologies and belief systems, but are not indoctrinated to accept any of these systems as being the only genuine truth. That way, in this globalised world, it will be easier for them to understand why so many people in the world are misguided by one or other religion.:cool:

    atheism-atheism-religion-demotivational-poster-1217465653.jpeg

    tumblr_lsb7u2rCr11qd1zvfo1_400.gif


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    bluewolf wrote: »
    comparative religion or no religion. not two different forms of doctrine until they dont know if they're coming or going
    a little more maths and science in general would be better

    Oh I agree with need more maths and science in particular in primary school but that would require a major overhaul of how subjects in general are thought at that level. If kids a better understanding of maths and science before entering secondary school they maybe more inclined to tackle higher maths/science.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,739 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting a brainwashing class but a class to counter balance an argument that God may or may not exist.
    What’s the counterbalance to an argument that God may or may not exist?

    I’m not just trying to be smart; this actually points to the problem with your suggestion.

    “Does God exist?” is a religious question, and if you take a position on that and argue for it, that’s a religious discussion and, in the educational context, the class in which you have such discussions is a religion class - not because you call it that, necessarily, but because it in fact is.

    Just as, in an ethics class, you might take the position that there are no objective moral absolutes, or the opposing position. Either way, it’s an ethics class by virtue of the fact that you are discussing that question in it. Or, in a science class, if you argue that light is a particle, or a wave, or something else, or that a particular postulated subatomic particle does or does not exist, it’s a science class by virtue of the fact that you are arguing in either direction on that point.

    So, your wife did have religion classes in her school; she had classes in which religious ideas were discussed - classes the purpose of which was the discussion of relgious ideas. Those are religions classes, and they don’t cease to be so merely because she and her classmates were encouraged to adopt atheistic positions on the religious questions considered.

    (No, I’m not saying that atheism is a religion or that atheists are religious. I’m just saying that atheists can and do study religion/talk about religion/adopt and argue for particular positions on religious questions. And in fact they usually are identified as atheists precisely because of the positions they adopt on certain religious questions, like “does God exist?”)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    This is an issue that Atheist Ireland has been raising with the Department of Education.

    Children should be taught in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner about the different religious and nonreligious beliefs that exist. That would include being taught about atheism, but not being taught that atheism is true.

    The phrase "objective, critical and pluralistic" in this context is recommended by the Irish Human Rights Commission, enshrined in the Toledo Guiding Principles, and ruled on by the ECHR.

    It is a different from faith formation, which is what the churches want to include (and generally do include) in religious education/instruction.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    [...] faith formation [...]
    Ugh. "Faith formation" has to be up there with "ethos" as a bland term used to disguise an unpleasant reality.

    If "indoctrination" is too strong a substitute, then perhaps "faith injection" or something similar is ok?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,744 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Maybe a class in Logic or Critical Thinking.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Hello all! Long time stalker here!:o

    Too much of the principles of education has been handed down from the time when it was about learning scripture by rote.

    There is far too little practical, useful and applicable education.
    Why aren't 16 or 17 yo's taught how to drive? Cook? Clean? Do a budget? These are all things that are part of adult life but somehow, doing home ec is considered "too gay" and business studies "too boring".

    Another aspect more pertinent to this particular thread is the rote learning of History, Science, Geography etc..

    I think Religion should be absorbed into a comparative and applied History class that's used to assess not the facts of history, (whether religion is nonsense or not, it had very real ramifications) but what those facts resulted in and what caused them to occur in the first place.
    Why did Christianity come about? What did Mao gain by starving millions of his people?

    Doing so could be used as a tool to educate about the dangers of fanaticism, autocracy etc, rather than just learning that they happened.
    Alot of education seems to be about learning trivia for the sake of it rather than trying to get any better understanding of how the world works.
    Learning the laws of thermodynamics is fine but it's far better to learn how they were arrived at and what they achieve.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,909 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Children should be taught in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner about the different religious and nonreligious beliefs that exist. That would include being taught about atheism, but not being taught that atheism is true.

    While I don't disagree with this idea I do wonder if this actually needs a separate religion class. Can't children learn about other religions in history, science, social studies, civics and political geography? Because it's going to be impossible to give an actual fair and balanced account of all world religions, there are too many of them.

    Instead it would be better, imo, to include lessons about specific religions into other existing subjects. If kids are learning about the reformation they can learn the differences between the reigning Catholicism and the divergent Protestant churches that grew up at this time. They can learn about why this happened and the impact that then had on world events. The same goes for learning about the Tudors and Stewarts, the American colonies, Irish history, etc. In science the discovery of certain principles can occasionally be coupled with the reactions to certain discoveries that came from the major relevant religions and why, like Galileo's and Darwin's struggles with the churches. Social studies and civics could include lessons about modern religions and the impacts they have on their followers and world events. While political geography also includes learning about the religious make-up of the people in the region being studied.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Again I am not suggesting we adopt the communist Lenin philosophy. But it is interesting that brainwashing was mentioned.

    So you guys would be more amenable to religious classes being dropped than a counter point being offered?

    What counter point?

    "Boys and girls, there is no god....that it's for the year".


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,739 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    iguana wrote: »
    While I don't disagree with this idea I do wonder if this actually needs a separate religion class. Can't children learn about other religions in history, science, social studies, civics and political geography? . . . .
    This is a good point. But I think there's a bit more to it than that. You are essentially suggesting that we look at the consequences of religious belief as manifested in history, geography, economics, etc, and that we look at the content of at least some religious beliefs, to the extent necessary to understand the consquences.

    But I think we can go further; there's an important philosophical side to this. Does God exist? Does the answer to that question matter? Why (or why not)? What are some of the ways that people have sought to answer that question? And we could ask similar questions about, say, the distinction between the material and the spiritual, or about the connection between ethics and religion, and a host of other questions.

    These are important questions, and they can't be reduced to matters of history and geography and other social sciences. For better or worse, religion classes are about as most participants in the Irish educational system ever come to any kind of education in philosophy or philosophical thinking, and I think if religious education is replaced or reformed it should be in that direction.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting a brainwashing class but a class to counter balance an argument that God may or may not exist.

    Reality teaches people this well enough.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 238 ✭✭dmw07


    RichieC wrote: »
    Reality teaches people this well enough.

    It's hard to see reality behind the veil of faith.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Religion should be part of the history module. Not because "Religion is History", hur hur, but because the two are so intertwined that students will get a good grasp of why and how religions came out in the context of the times they appeared in.

    I think this will make it easier to understand religions as arbitrary, plucked-from-the-sky viewpoints instead of trying to teach them in a "some people believe...." manner. I could be wrong though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,739 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    seamus wrote: »
    Religion should be part of the history module. Not because "Religion is History", hur hur, but because the two are so intertwined that students will get a good grasp of why and how religions came out in the context of the times they appeared in.

    I think this will make it easier to understand religions as arbitrary, plucked-from-the-sky viewpoints instead of trying to teach them in a "some people believe...." manner. I could be wrong though.
    Except that (a) the view that religions are arbitrary, plucked-from-the-sky viewpoints is obviously a contentious one, and (b) whether you think it's true or false, it's clearly not the business of the state to mandate that this view be taught to all children. That's pretty much what the OP referred to.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭Westernman


    I feel that the way most RC schools teach religion especially in Ireland usually have the child indoctrinated before the have come of age to question.

    Im a non believing RC and wished for my children to also question religion so put no pressure on them and didn't wish for them to make there communion. However my eldest at the time was very upset when I told her and begged me to allow her to make it. Part of me thinks it was because she didnt want to feel left out and also we wanted this lovely princess dress to wear.

    Now she is a little older and of an age to make her own decisions yet already a part of the RC church.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Westernman wrote: »
    Im a non believing RC

    A what now?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 50 ✭✭Westernman


    A what now?

    lol I was brought up Roman Catholic but now im spiritual but not religious, so I believe we are more than the body but I dont believe any church doctrine.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    ...... She told me that there was Atheism Classes,......Do you guys/gals feel that a similar class could be introduced in this country as a balance to religious study..

    There already is, it's called science! But we make a mess of that too.

    Kids shouldn't be told in school that religion is true or false. The main difference between a good education and a bad one is that kids should be taught not what to think, but how to think.
    .

    Exactly, that's what's wrong with the education system here (and probably elsewhere too) We teach kids big lists of facts to remember, instead of teaching them how to ascertain if something is fact or fiction for themselves. For example there is a row going on at the moment about the new physics syllabus, which intends to teach our kids that protons and nuetrons are fundamental particles, a "fact" known to be false for at least a couple of decades. How ridiculous is that, to teach things known to be wrong!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,909 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    How ridiculous is that, to teach things known to be wrong!

    The school syllabus is full of things that are known to be wrong. History is, ime, the worst offender. Much of it is simplified to a point where it becomes completely nonfactual.


Advertisement