What to tell kids when they ask?

kylith · 01-01-2016 08:12PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can appreciate all that, but all I was saying is that if I was threatened with being put on a performance review for notifying my boss in advance that I was going to need an hour in the morning or I was going to need time off in the future for upcoming events, I'd be looking at a change of employment. That's just me though, and I wouldn't be suggesting anyone else should do the same thing, because as you quite rightly pointed out - all our circumstances will be different and it's a question of priorities. I said from the very beginning almost of the thread that parents make sacrifices and trade-offs for their children every day.

Well, the same as everyone else I can only speak for my own circumstances but if I was to start an hour later in the mornings then I couldn't start my work until an hour later, so clients aren't going to get their reports until an hour later than they expect them and which they have structured into their day, so they're likely to complain to my boss because me being an hour late starting work has set everyone back an hour. Not to mention the fact that I now have 8 hours' work to do and 7 hours to do it in. And if I have to leave 2 hours early every Wednesday for months on end then I have 6 hours to do 8 hours' work, and if I don't get it done before I go the next day I have 8 hours to do 10 hours' work and a bunch of clients who are angry because they were expecting their reports Wednesday afternoon and didn't get them.

Maybe I'm an unusual case, I don't know, all I know is that if I were to have to change my work hours because the school, which is publicly funded, refuses to facilitate supervision of my child while they look after the interests of a private group it doesn't just put me out, it puts out my boss, my clients, and the co-workers who would have to cover for me and thus take time away from their work. And all because a private organisation, the RCC, has a monopoly on schools. And because some parents want to have their child have a day out and a new frock for communion and confirmation but don't want to pay for it and can't be arsed to do it in their own time.

Again I say, if they can make time to bring their child to karate or oboe lessons bun not for religion classes then religion obviously isn't that important to them.

And again your suggestions boil down to: non-Catholics should move house, quit their jobs, or just accept that we're second class citizens and shut up and let our children be indoctrinated into a belief system which we do not subscribe to.

Akrasia · 01-01-2016 09:13PM

Swanner wrote: »

I agree with most of what you say but not so sure about this...

We probably shouldn't pander to anything but surely education should always be cognizant of the innate and the natural when dealing with young minds.

Yeah, be cognizant, but not pandering. We are cognizant of bullying but don't pander to it (I hppe)

The Bishop Basher · 01-01-2016 09:55PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

You used the term 'evolutionary atheist'. What's your definition?

Firstly, not my words. It was a quote from the article. I just pasted the last few lines.

WRT to a definition, I'm assuming you read the article so you have the context. I'm also assuming you're familiar with creationism and intelligent design and that you know what "evolutionary" and "atheist" mean within that context. So I kind of have to assume you understand the definition because it's a literal translation and therefore self explanatory.

All of this makes me understandably suspicious of your request.

Maybe if you can highlight the bit you're unsure of I can help you with that.

One eyed Jack · 01-01-2016 10:04PM

kylith wrote: »

Well, the same as everyone else I can only speak for my own circumstances but...

Maybe I'm an unusual case, I don't know...

No you're not an unusual case, your circumstances are representative of most parents who have to juggle their personal and professional lives and try and prioritise one thing over another and keep everything on an even keel.

And all because a private organisation, the RCC, has a monopoly on schools. And because some parents want to have their child have a day out and a new frock for communion and confirmation but don't want to pay for it and can't be arsed to do it in their own time.

Because those parents have different priorities to you, their priorities shouldn't matter?

At least while we're only speaking for ourselves here - it's a good thing you said some parents, because you probably know parents I don't.

Nope, I can't say I've ever known any parents who send their children to religious ethos schools so they can have two days out in eight years.

Again I say, if they can make time to bring their child to karate or oboe lessons bun not for religion classes then religion obviously isn't that important to them.

Well now you're speaking for other people, as you don't know what their priorities are, let alone what is or isn't important to them. I can only speak for myself though, so I'm just going to say you're wrong, and leave it at that.

And again your suggestions boil down to: non-Catholics should move house, quit their jobs, or just accept that we're second class citizens and shut up and let our children be indoctrinated into a belief system which we do not subscribe to.

Not even once, ever, have I ever suggested anything so utterly... stupid. In fact I've only ever suggested the opposite - don't be afraid to speak up for yourself!

Oh, and that "second class citizens" mantra, much as I would encourage anyone to speak up for themselves, that kind of lack of perspective really gets on my tits tbh. It has no meaning being used by someone who is certainly not IMO, a second class citizen.

Pherekydes · 01-01-2016 10:12PM

Swanner wrote: »

Firstly, not my words. It was a quote from the article. I just pasted the last few lines.

WRT to a definition, I'm assuming you read the article so you have the context. I'm also assuming you're familiar with creationism and intelligent design and that you know what "evolutionary" and "atheist" mean within that context. So I kind of have to assume you understand the definition because it's a literal translation and therefore self explanatory.

All of this makes me understandably suspicious of your request.

Maybe if you can highlight the bit you're unsure of I can help you with that.

The article on the ID website? I glossed over it. Brain starts to go foggy reading that sh1te.

I'm assuming, for the sake of discussion, that atheist has the meaning 'does not believe in god or gods', so evolutionary atheist would be somewhat tautological, would it not?

RainyDay · 01-01-2016 10:48PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If that's the way they treat you wherever you work, then I would suggest looking for a new job anyway, because I've never experienced anything like that.

Ever worked in retail? Or healthcare? Or hospitality? There are lots of jobs where 'I'll be an hour late' is not an option.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It seems a very individual experience tbh and there are obviously a whole set of circumstances at play there, possibly a personality clash with the Principal, it's impossible to say really.

Nice touch of victim-blaming there, but it avoids the nub of the issue. There should be no question of 'personality clash' because parents should not have to go there with the Principal in order to get an inclusive approach to school activities.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"Children have no concept of imaginary friends"...

Righto

Are we equating a god with imaginary friends now?

Swanner wrote: »

That's one brazen out of context quote.

If you've actually read the article it'll have given you food for thought if nothing more.

"We see, then, multiple studies converging on a single conclusion: the innate predisposition of the human mind to believe that there is some kind of an intelligent creator God. Perhaps as we get older we may override this programming, but our fundamental constitution appears oriented to religious belief.

If you're an evolutionary atheist, don't you find this just a bit peculiar? Darwinian explanations abound, of course, but they have the tinny, desperate sound of inadequate rationalizations."

The quote is taken from the conclusion, but you're right, it is a little out of context. The previous sentence gives a bit more context as to the strength and nature of the conclusions;

"The developmental research above suggests that this is not the case, since children seem to have some beliefs that are not present, or at least not as strong, in the adults surrounding them. "

Hardly conclusive, and one single research paper is not exactly a sound basis for fundamental policy.

kylith wrote: »

And again your suggestions boil down to: non-Catholics should move house, quit their jobs, or just accept that we're second class citizens and shut up and let our children be indoctrinated into a belief system which we do not subscribe to.

You're right - great summary, and fairly scary.

The Bishop Basher · 01-01-2016 11:03PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

The article on the ID website? I glossed over it. Brain starts to go foggy reading that sh1te.

I'm assuming, for the sake of discussion, that atheist has the meaning 'does not believe in god or gods', so evolutionary atheist would be somewhat tautological, would it not?

OK. You had no context so I understand the request.

You'd really have to ask the author but I would assume they use that phrase to distinguish between evolutionary atheists and atheists who support intelligent design.

I suppose it could be considered tautological on the basis that the vast majority of atheists support evolution but in context it makes more sense.

Pherekydes · 01-01-2016 11:05PM

Swanner wrote: »

You'd really have to ask the author but I would assume they use that phrase to distinguish between evolutionary atheists and atheists who support intelligent design.

Atheists who support ID?

OK. Carry on.

One eyed Jack · 02-01-2016 12:08AM

RainyDay wrote: »

Ever worked in retail? Or healthcare? Or hospitality? There are lots of jobs where 'I'll be an hour late' is not an option.

Nope, I can't say I've ever worked in a career where "I'll be an hour late" was ever not an option. I've always spoken up for myself though, so telling my employer in advance that I needed time off or to rearrange my hours, was never an issue.

Nice touch of victim-blaming there, but it avoids the nub of the issue. There should be no question of 'personality clash' because parents should not have to go there with the Principal in order to get an inclusive approach to school activities.

Interesting the way you read that. It wasn't 'victim-blaming' at all. The way I read your post was that the Principal sounds like a difficult person to deal with, but difficult and all as they may be, the Principal of any school sure as hell isn't a mind reader, and so if you want to be included - speak up for yourself, and don't let yourself be spoken down to. You're a parent with a child in the school so you have a vested interest in the running of the school. The way you make it sound though is that you've resigned yourself to playing the role of a victim. I'm not sure that's ever a very useful strategy tbh.

Are we equating a god with imaginary friends now?

Nope, we're demonstrating that children aren't normally constrained by logic and reason in processing new concepts. Sometimes they'll even come out with some amazing and outlandish theories. It's called 'using their imagination'.

You're right - great summary, and fairly scary.

It wasn't a great summary. It was a poor attempt to put words in my mouth in an attempt to play the role of a victim. I've never said anyone should do anything apart from not being afraid to speak up for themselves.

The Bishop Basher · 02-01-2016 12:27AM

RainyDay wrote: »

The quote is taken from the conclusion, but you're right, it is a little out of context. The previous sentence gives a bit more context as to the strength and nature of the conclusions;

"It is obvious that some religious beliefs are entirely learned... Some might argue that all religious beliefs are, including dualism and creationism.

The developmental research above suggests that this is not the case, since children seem to have some beliefs that are not present, or at least not as strong, in the adults surrounding them. "

I've fixed your post to give the full context....

RainyDay wrote: »

Hardly conclusive, and one single research paper is not exactly a sound basis for fundamental policy.

I agree that one research paper is not a sound basis for fundamental policy but there are numerous other studies linked both in the article and the research paper. Had you bothered reading through the "sh1te! you would have seen them..

"Indeed, I wrote earlier about how humans seem to be hard-wired for religious belief, and was reminded by an e-mail correspondent about how many other studies there are that show children have a predisposition to believe in God. What follows is a short literature review of scholarship that arrives at the same conclusion: young children seem wired to be "intuitive theists."

So yes, one research paper on it's own is easily dismissed but not so easy with a growing body of research finding in support of the theory.

With respect, if your position continues to be a complete denial of the research presented then we're done. By all means challenge it but denying it is not a reasonable position.

Seems to be a growing trend these days..

The Bishop Basher · 02-01-2016 12:28AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Atheists who support ID?

OK. Carry on.

What's the problem ?

Gallagher1 · 02-01-2016 01:02AM

Swanner wrote: »

What's the problem ?

Atheism and ID are essentially mutually exclusive.

BoatMad · 02-01-2016 05:00AM

just going back to the OP, my own experience as an atheist , kids not baptised etc, but they went to a religious ethos school ( not RCC) for both primary and secondary , in fact one of them won a all ireland bible reading competition !!!,

I never tried to unlearn them of anything, nor asked them to opt out of any school religious activities ( hymn singing etc)

Kids take their cue from you , not school , if they see as a family you have no interest in religion , they will , in general equally have no interest in it. Even if they develop an interest, you can put your views to them in an age appropriate way, they may listen or they may not.

once they reach the age of majority, its all up to them anyway

The Bishop Basher · 02-01-2016 08:05AM

Gallagher1 wrote: »

Atheism and ID are essentially mutually exclusive.

No they're not. Plenty of atheists support ID. Please feel free to research and educate yourself a little before responding so we can debate documented theory and facts as opposed to your own narrowly held views of atheism.

This isn't the first time on this thread that i've noticed some atheists using very narrow definitions of theological terms. The irony is that they appear to be adopting very "christian like" definitions of words like "faith" and "God".

Rainyday has difficulty understanding how a child can develop a faith. And I would agree that if we're defining faith as a belief in the Christian God as we tend to know it then yes it's likely that child would require some element of religious instruction to guide them in that direction.

In other word, we have to teach them the man made stuff.

But if you step away from any particular religious dogma and apply these terms as most informed and educated people do when engaged in a general theological discussion, you'll find that they become much broader.

No child is born Christian, Jewish or Muslim. They would have to be indoctrinated into that particular belief system and I think most would agree on that.

But they certainly can have a faith in their own "God" and just because that God may not be the narrowly defined religious "God" as some atheists seem to understand it, doesn't make it any less of a faith or any less valid. And all any child needs to achieve this is an ability for observation of the world around them and some independent thought.

There's plenty of evidence to support this and that body of evidence continues to grow.

I suppose it's understandable that this would be the case.... Take the OP's child as an example... If you censor all religious teaching out of a child's life and indoctrinate them only with atheistic views, they'll likely struggle in discussions such as this. They will lack experience and perspective. Indeed, any religious knowledge they do have will have been picked up piecemeal from their environment, and will be potentially inaccurate. misunderstood, or out of context. Interestingly though it's also likely to reflect the mainstream religion that surrounds them. In this case, Christianity.

But this is neither an effective nor balanced education. For a timely example of what a balanced education can look like, see BoatMad's post above.

And so we're potentially left with the worst of all worlds. Atheists with an arrogant belief that their way is the only way yet without the soul searching, knowledge and personal experience they would require in order to intellectually defend that position with a balanced perspective let alone an educated one.

And the ultimate kicker is that both of these are very likely to kill off any potential for further learning or understanding.

RainyDay · 02-01-2016 11:36AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, I can't say I've ever worked in a career where "I'll be an hour late" was ever not an option. I've always spoken up for myself though, so telling my employer in advance that I needed time off or to rearrange my hours, was never an issue.

Interesting the way you read that. It wasn't 'victim-blaming' at all. The way I read your post was that the Principal sounds like a difficult person to deal with, but difficult and all as they may be, the Principal of any school sure as hell isn't a mind reader, and so if you want to be included - speak up for yourself, and don't let yourself be spoken down to. You're a parent with a child in the school so you have a vested interest in the running of the school. The way you make it sound though is that you've resigned yourself to playing the role of a victim. I'm not sure that's ever a very useful strategy tbh.

Interesting how you address victim-blaming with more victim-blaming. It's the employees fault for not 'speaking up'. It's my fault for not 'speaking up' to the Principal.

For the record, I have no difficulty in 'speaking up' in any environment. If anything, I have difficulty in shutting up, not speaking up.

Difficulties with getting to work an hour late are not due to lack of speaking up. They are due to people being in jobs where their presence at a particular time is a fundamental feature of the job. If you're a nurse on a ward, you need to start your shift on time to get the handover. If you're a security guard, you need to start your shift on time to open the building. No amount of 'speaking up' fixes this.

In relation to the examples of discrimination given above, I had 'spoken up' quite a lot on these issues, and did get some progress with one of them, though people have now slipped back into old habits when I moved on.

But your victim-blaming approach misses the central point. Why should parents have to 'speak up' to force a school to work in an inclusive manner? Should it not be a fundamental principle of all schools to involve all students in all activities?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, we're demonstrating that children aren't normally constrained by logic and reason in processing new concepts. Sometimes they'll even come out with some amazing and outlandish theories. It's called 'using their imagination'.

Imagination is great. Imagination does not come up with an omniscient and all powerful god, unless you're equating religion with superheros.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wasn't a great summary. It was a poor attempt to put words in my mouth in an attempt to play the role of a victim. I've never said anyone should do anything apart from not being afraid to speak up for themselves.

Even more explicit victim-blaming here, with the blame being put on parents for being afraid to speak up - nice....

Swanner wrote: »

I've fixed your post to give the full context....

I agree that one research paper is not a sound basis for fundamental policy but there are numerous other studies linked both in the article and the research paper. Had you bothered reading through the "sh1te! you would have seen them..

"Indeed, I wrote earlier about how humans seem to be hard-wired for religious belief, and was reminded by an e-mail correspondent about how many other studies there are that show children have a predisposition to believe in God. What follows is a short literature review of scholarship that arrives at the same conclusion: young children seem wired to be "intuitive theists."

So yes, one research paper on it's own is easily dismissed but not so easy with a growing body of research finding in support of the theory.

With respect, if your position continues to be a complete denial of the research presented then we're done. By all means challenge it but denying it is not a reasonable position.

Seems to be a growing trend these days..

I've read the paper, multiple times. The main findings are that;

- because children believe that a dead mouse can continue to feel hunger, and
- because children believe that rocks are pointy to allow animals to scratch themselves,

this is evidence of a belief in God.

Really, it's a long, long way off. Babies and toddlers don't have any concept of a god unless they are told about it. It's just common sense.

Swanner wrote: »

Rainyday has difficulty understanding how a child can develop a faith. And I would agree that if we're defining faith as a belief in the Christian God as we tend to know it then yes it's likely that child would require some element of religious instruction to guide them in that direction.

In other word, we have to teach them the man made stuff.

But if you step away from any particular religious dogma and apply these terms as most informed and educated people do when engaged in a general theological discussion, you'll find that they become much broader.

No child is born Christian, Jewish or Muslim. They would have to be indoctrinated into that particular belief system and I think most would agree on that.

But they certainly can have a faith in their own "God" and just because that God may not be the narrowly defined religious "God" as some atheists seem to understand it, doesn't make it any less of a faith or any less valid. And all any child needs to achieve this is an ability for observation of the world around them and some independent thought.

There's plenty of evidence to support this and that body of evidence continues to grow.

I suppose it's understandable that this would be the case.... Take the OP's child as an example... If you censor all religious teaching out of a child's life and indoctrinate them only with your atheistic views, they'll likely struggle in discussions such as this. They will lack experience and perspective. Indeed, any religious knowledge they do have will have been picked up piecemeal from their environment, will be potentially inaccurate. misunderstood, out of context and very likely to reflect the mainstream religion that surrounds them.

But this is not an effective or balanced education. For a timely example of what a balanced education can look like, see BoatMad's post above. And so we're potentially left with the worst of all worlds. Atheists with an arrogant belief that their way is the only way yet with a complete lack of the soul searching and knowledge they would require in order to intellectually defend that position never mind approach any discussion with an educated, balanced perspective.

And the ultimate kicker is that both of these are very likely to kill off any potential for further learning or understanding.

Please don't patronise me, and please don't patronise atheists in general. I don't have any 'difficulty in understanding'. There is nothing to understand. There is no evidence or indication that children believe in god unless they are taught.

Atheists are no more likely to 'struggle in discussions like this' than others. The only struggle is the search for evidence, which is a fruitless struggle round here.

recedite · 02-01-2016 12:15PM

Swanner wrote: »

I agree with you that the current system is unfair. But I don't agree that we should switch to another unfair system just to keep atheists or any other minority happy.

We also have to accept the reality that life isn't always fair. Someone somewhere will always feel hard done by.

We have differing opinions on how this should be resolved and that's OK. I'm happy you have an opposing view because we get to challenge each other and that usually makes for a better and fairer solution.

But no matter what you do, it will never be 100% fair for all. We have to accept that and work on that basis. Anything else is just unrealistic.

Blithely throwing up your hands and saying "the system is unfair, but we just have to accept our lot in life" is the typical response of somebody who is receiving some advantage from that system.

Obviously, those who are being disadvantaged can only reply to you saying "that is nonsense".

Its not even difficult to imagine what a 100% fair and secular public school system would be like. Its the norm in much bigger and more powerful EU countries such as Germany and France. Finland is of a more comparable size and population density, and their system is often considered to be the best as it does not stream kids in the way that the German system does. It would be a simple matter to copy that template.
And none of these are "Stalinist" countries.
German system..

Part of the reason for the dearth of private or church schools is the German conviction that public education is a vital element that contributes to a well-educated citizenry and a sense of common purpose.

You lament the sense of unfairness, the segregation, the divisiveness, the damage to cohesion and community, the excessive traveling, all resulting from denominational and patronage control of schools. But most amazingly of all, you act as if there was no other choice.

The Bishop Basher · 02-01-2016 12:38PM

RainyDay wrote: »

I've read the paper, multiple times. The main findings are that;

- because children believe that a dead mouse can continue to feel hunger, and
- because children believe that rocks are pointy to allow animals to scratch themselves,

this is evidence of a belief in God.

Ok. So if that's your summation you clearly either didn't read it or didn't comprehend it. That's ok. It happens. But i'm not going to spend hours helping you figure it out.

Out of interest, did you read any of the numerous other studies multiple times too ? Maybe you could provide a slightly more intelligent and informed summation of them then you've just provided for the research paper.

RainyDay wrote: »

Really, it's a long, long way off. Babies and toddlers don't have any concept of a god unless they are told about it. It's just common sense.

So you say from your narrow atheistic perspective. The research disagrees. As does human experience. You're simply projecting your world view on everyone else. I have zero difficulty accepting that many children, maybe even most, will not develop a faith on their own terms. But neither am I arrogant enough, especially in the face of all the growing evidence and my own personal experience, to categorically state that they won't.

RainyDay wrote: »

Please don't patronise me, and please don't patronise atheists in general. I don't have any 'difficulty in understanding'. There is nothing to understand. There is no evidence or indication that children believe in god unless they are taught.

Yes there is. Plenty of evidence. The fact that you choose to ignore it doesn't make it go away. As for your comment that there's nothing to understand, well that speaks volumes.

If you really have nothing further to understand on this topic I suggest you reach out to the Theology Dept. in TCD. They'll probably pay big bucks for that infallible mind of yours. Or better yet you should let all those researchers know that they can stop whet they're doing as you've got the answers they're looking for. I'm sure they'll be well chuffed.

Meanwhile the rest of us mere mortals will continue to educate ourselves, evolve, learn, discuss and develop our understanding of these issues. That's what open minds do.

RainyDay wrote: »

Atheists are no more likely to 'struggle in discussions like this' than others. The only struggle is the search for evidence, which is a fruitless struggle round here.

Not all atheists obviously. But those that have had no education on or exposure to religion will be at a distinct disadvantage when discussing religion with those that have been educated on all sides of the debate. That you find this patronising is unfortunate for you but it doesn't negate the point or change the reality.

RainyDay · 02-01-2016 01:04PM

Swanner wrote: »

Ok. So if that's your summation you clearly either didn't read it or didn't comprehend it. That's ok. It happens. But i'm not going to spend hours helping you figure it out.

Out of interest, did you read any of the numerous other studies multiple times too ? Maybe you could provide a slightly more intelligent and informed summation of them then you've just provided for the research paper.

So you say from your narrow atheistic perspective. The research disagrees. As does human experience. You're simply projecting your world view on everyone else. I have zero difficulty accepting that many children, maybe even most, will not develop a faith on their own terms. But neither am I arrogant enough, especially in the face of all the growing evidence and my own personal experience, to categorically state that they won't.

Yes there is. Plenty of evidence. The fact that you choose to ignore it doesn't make it go away. As for your comment that there's nothing to understand, well that speaks volumes.

If you really have nothing further to understand on this topic I suggest you reach out to the Theology Dept. in TCD. They'll probably pay big bucks for that infallible mind of yours. Or better yet you should let all those researchers know that they can stop whet they're doing as you've got the answers they're looking for. I'm sure they'll be well chuffed.

Meanwhile the rest of us mere mortals will continue to educate ourselves, evolve, learn, discuss and develop our understanding of these issues. That's what open minds do.

Not all atheists obviously. But those that have had no education on or exposure to religion will be at a distinct disadvantage when discussing religion with those that have been educated on all sides of the debate. That you find this patronising is unfortunate for you but it doesn't negate the point or change the reality.

It's sad to see you relying on the age-old tactic of 'You're not clever enough to understand this stuff, so leave it to me'. Many churches got away with this nonsense for years, but not so much these days.

It's not subjective. There is no evidence showing that children develop their own concept of God. It's just not there.

Pherekydes · 02-01-2016 01:15PM

Swanner wrote: »

No they're not. Plenty of atheists support ID. Please feel free to research and educate yourself a little before responding so we can debate documented theory and facts as opposed to your own narrowly held views of atheism.

If an atheist supports ID then they must accept that there is something causing the ID, i.e. a god, which would mean that they are not atheist. Stop trying to redefine words to suit your own agenda.

In your words, educate yourself.

xband · 02-01-2016 01:21PM

RainyDay wrote: »

Ever worked in retail? Or healthcare? Or hospitality? There are lots of jobs where 'I'll be an hour late' is not an option.

Nice touch of victim-blaming there, but it avoids the nub of the issue. There should be no question of 'personality clash' because parents should not have to go there with the Principal in order to get an inclusive approach to school activities.

Are we equating a god with imaginary friends now?

The quote is taken from the conclusion, but you're right, it is a little out of context. The previous sentence gives a bit more context as to the strength and nature of the conclusions;

"The developmental research above suggests that this is not the case, since children seem to have some beliefs that are not present, or at least not as strong, in the adults surrounding them. "

Hardly conclusive, and one single research paper is not exactly a sound basis for fundamental policy.

You're right - great summary, and fairly scary.

[sarcasm]

Don't worry a certain organisation reckons you should be at home baking cakes and popping out a new baby every nine months.

Sure what would you need to have predictable school hours for? You'd swear you were living in a modern society concerned about ensuring people have equal access to the workplace!

[/sarcasm]

Hotblack Desiato · 02-01-2016 01:34PM

Swanner wrote: »

No they're not. Plenty of atheists support ID.

Do you seriously expect to be able to throw a whopper like that into the discussion, completely unsubstantiated, and get away with it?

Please feel free to research and educate yourself a little before responding

LOL

But this is neither an effective nor balanced education. For a timely example of what a balanced education can look like, see BoatMad's post above.

That's not balanced at all. It's indoctrination into a particular denomination of a particular religion. Any discussion of other faith or non-faith positions, if it occurs at all, is in the context of the overriding "ethos" of the school.

Balanced would be something like ET's RE curriculum (especially as it now includes input from Atheist Ireland

)

And the ultimate kicker is that both of these are very likely to kill off any potential for further learning or understanding.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, not even Atheist Ireland, is proposing your strawman argument of 'banning religion'. A balanced approach to RE is required where all faith and non-faith positions are equally respected.

One eyed Jack · 02-01-2016 01:40PM

RainyDay wrote: »

Interesting how you address victim-blaming with more victim-blaming. It's the employees fault for not 'speaking up'. It's my fault for not 'speaking up' to the Principal.

For the record, I have no difficulty in 'speaking up' in any environment. If anything, I have difficulty in shutting up, not speaking up.

Please stop with that phrase "victim blaming". It's meaningless. You're not the victim of anything. People have differences of opinion all the time and not everything goes their way all the time. It doesn't mean they're the "victim" of anything.

Difficulties with getting to work an hour late are not due to lack of speaking up. They are due to people being in jobs where their presence at a particular time is a fundamental feature of the job. If you're a nurse on a ward, you need to start your shift on time to get the handover. If you're a security guard, you need to start your shift on time to open the building. No amount of 'speaking up' fixes this.

Yeah it does, that's how people get what they want, they speak up and they get support from other people who feel the same way they do. That's how conditions improve for people. You know this because you've been on the PA, you've achieved things, you've made progress on some issues, you haven't on other issues. Being on the PA and the BOM myself, I know exactly what it's like - not everyone has ever agreed with policies I've tried to introduce into the school, but I've never claimed I was the 'victim' of anything, because that would be silly.

In relation to the examples of discrimination given above, I had 'spoken up' quite a lot on these issues, and did get some progress with one of them, though people have now slipped back into old habits when I moved on.

But your victim-blaming approach misses the central point. Why should parents have to 'speak up' to force a school to work in an inclusive manner? Should it not be a fundamental principle of all schools to involve all students in all activities?

It's your "I'm a victim" approach which misses the central point IMO. You even miss it when you talk about how changes were implemented in the school, but when you moved on, the progress that was made slipped back into old habits. That's why people need to speak up, because while it should be a fundamental principle of all schools to involve all the students in all activities, it's also the responsibility of all parents to get involved in the school and get involved in activities.

Parents that don't feel they should have to do anything shouldn't expect that the school will be all that bothered either. In an ideal world the parents could just do a stop 'n' drop and have no further interaction with the school, and the school would churn out well-rounded little geniuses and all the rest of it, but we don't live in an ideal world. I'm trying to avoid being patronising here, but this is just common sense stuff - nothing changes unless something happens to change it.

If everyone dismisses it as someone else's responsibility, then nothing changes because nobody is complaining so the perception is that everyone is happy with the status quo.

Even more explicit victim-blaming here, with the blame being put on parents for being afraid to speak up - nice....

Expecting parents to behave like parents? Shocking!

Meanwhile, how do you think every other parent with school-going children manages to do it without claiming "I'm a victim" and expecting the world to revolve around them because they feel they shouldn't have to do anything to change their circumstances?

Without again meaning to sound patronising, but you know all this stuff already - change doesn't happen in a vacuum and without people speaking up and cooperating with each other to achieve the aims that benefit the group as a whole.

The Bishop Basher · 02-01-2016 02:37PM

recedite wrote: »

Blithely throwing up your hands and saying "the system is unfair, but we just have to accept our lot in life" is the typical response of somebody who is receiving some advantage from that system.

Obviously, those who are being disadvantaged can only reply to you saying "that is nonsense".

Please quote the text where I stated that everyone has to accept their lot and we can go from there...

I don't think it, and i'm pretty sure I never said it so i'll wait for you to respond before commenting further...

recedite wrote: »

Its not even difficult to imagine what a 100% fair and secular public school system would be like. Its the norm in much bigger and more powerful EU countries such as Germany and France. Finland is of a more comparable size and population density, and their system is often considered to be the best as it does not stream kids in the way that the German system does. It would be a simple matter to copy that template.

Great. so when the majority of people in this country decide they want a 100% secular system, we can just adopt the finish system.

Problem solved.

Now all you need is majority support and you're all good :-)

The Bishop Basher · 02-01-2016 03:17PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

If an atheist supports ID then they must accept that there is something causing the ID, i.e. a god, which would mean that they are not atheist. Stop trying to redefine words to suit your own agenda.

Once again you're only approaching this from a limited personal view which is a shame because it hinders your ability to learn new ideas.

There are a handful of atheists who support intelligent design and have presented theories that allow it sit in relative comfort with Atheism. Some more successfully then others to be fair.

It's not an area that particularly interests me so I haven't done much reading on it but they are out there, the theories exist.

So you can sit here demonstrating your ignorance by telling me i'm wrong over and over again or you can go find out for yourself, open your mind and educate yourself a little.

Choice is yours..

The Bishop Basher · 02-01-2016 03:32PM

RainyDay wrote: »

It's sad to see you relying on the age-old tactic of 'You're not clever enough to understand this stuff, so leave it to me'. Many churches got away with this nonsense for years, but not so much these days.

I never said anything about anyone's intelligence.

I do however stand by the point that if you have zero experience of religious belief and zero knowledge of religion because your atheist parents have raised you that way, you will not be in a position to engage in a balanced theological discussion.

By the way i'd be of exactly the same opinion should that child be raised by fundamentalist parents of any religion.

RainyDay wrote: »

It's not subjective. There is no evidence showing that children can develop their own concept of God. It's just not there.

FYP

Yes there is. Plenty of it.

Pherekydes · 02-01-2016 04:04PM

Swanner wrote: »

Once again you're only approaching this from a limited personal view which is a shame because it hinders your ability to learn new ideas.

There are a handful of atheists who support intelligent design and have presented theories that allow it sit in relative comfort with Atheism. Some more successfully then others to be fair.

It's not an area that particularly interests me so I haven't done much reading on it but they are out there, the theories exist.

So you can sit here demonstrating your ignorance by telling me i'm wrong over and over again or you can go find out for yourself, open your mind and educate yourself a little.

Choice is yours..

Redefining words. Again. Atheists who accept ID are not atheists. Regardless what they claim. Or what you claim.

Ignorance? I'm an atheist because of what I've read. I have no inability in learning new ideas. Stop trying to belittle the regulars on this forum. Your perceived superiority betrays your own ignorance.

silverharp · 02-01-2016 04:17PM

what are we talking about here, inter dimensional time travelling aliens who can create individual universes? thats about the only way I could square an Atheist position with ID

Huntergonzo · 02-01-2016 04:39PM

silverharp wrote: »

what are we talking about here, inter dimensional time travelling aliens who can create individual universes? thats about the only way I could square an Atheist position with ID

I don't believe in God but I do believe in intelligent design, I mean whoever designed the smartphone I'm using to post this message must have been pretty damn intelligent, maybe that's the sort of ID he means :-)

The Bishop Basher · 02-01-2016 04:49PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Redefining words. Again. Atheists who accept ID are not atheists. Regardless what they claim. Or what you claim.

Despite the fact that they identify themselves as atheists ?

Dangerous position that.

You're defining and labelling their beliefs based on your own.

And I'm not out to belittle anyone. I apologise if anyone feels belittled.. I'll try and choose my words more carefully..

But I'm not going to pretend that compete censorship of all religious knowledge can ever lead to a balanced and informed mind on matters of theology because it can't.

Pherekydes · 02-01-2016 05:02PM

Swanner wrote: »

Despite the fact that they identify themselves as atheists ?

They can self-identify as they wish? It doesn't make it so.

Dangerous position that.

Dangerous in what way? Adhering to accepted definitions is now dangerous?

You're defining and labelling their beliefs based on your own

I'm not labelling them. They are labelling themselves incorrectly.

And I'm not out to belittle anyone.

Of course you are. It's one of the stock tactics used by anti-atheist commentators.

But I'm not going to pretend that compete censorship of all religious knowledge can ever lead to a balanced and informed mind on matters of theology because it can't.

I think you'll find that atheists are usually the ones who look at religions with an unbiased eye.

What to tell kids when they ask?

Comments