What to tell kids when they ask?

Samaris wrote: »

If they're atheist - have no faith in a god or the existence of gods - then they are very confused altogether if they support creationism! (And let's be honest here, Intelligent Design is the renamed version of creationism).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and all, but not their own facts. An atheist who accepts ID should probably reconsider their viewpoints. Despite that, people are people and quite capable of believing contradictory things. But it shouldn't be presented as a mainstream atheistic view.

I think what they're doing, and certainly the way I read that article anyway, is that they actually are redefining the idea of "intelligent design", not so much to suggest the existence of a creator, but to suggest that there's some form of intelligence that remains undiscovered which forms the basis for the patterns they observe in the universe - extraterrestrial life, as opposed to existential deities.

Mind you, I don't agree with that either. Atheists can look at a religious belief system, but they will have, by their own atheistic beliefs*, have prejudged it to be incorrect, just as a Christian going by the rules of their own religion, will look at atheism or, hell, any other religion, and prejudge it to be inaccurate. We're all going to be biased one way or another.

I would have thought most atheists would simply be indifferent to the theistic beliefs, as for atheists these beliefs have no value. There are a small sub-group amongst atheists of anti-theists, who will focus solely on the negative aspects of theism.

*Awkward word, I know, but I don't have a better one.

Because my wife is non-religious, I explain things to our child in terms of principles, so for example when explaining about atheism, I explained it in terms of principles rather than 'beliefs', same thing with any of the other religions and religious denominations we'd talk about - there are certain principles peculiar to the various religions, and then there are the beliefs of that religion, and not all adherents who identify with a religion, will necessarily agree with all the principles or beliefs of whatever religion we're discussing.

Swanner wrote: »

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.

Who is proposing 'complete censorship of all religious knowledge'?

ET have an RE programme in their schools, heck, Atheist Ireland support the idea that all schools have an RE programme, they want it to be balanced and inclusive and not indoctrinating, but I am not aware of any group or body or campaign to remove all mention of religion from schools.
Forewarned is forearmed after all...

Swanner wrote: »

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.

That's interesting, a few posts earlier you said it was 'plenty'

Swanner wrote: »

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

So which is it? And whether your claim is 'plenty' or 'a handful' you've provided no evidence for your assertion whatsoever. That said, it shouldn't be too hard to find 'a handful' of people out of 7+ billion who believe in any given position however illogical and inherently contradictory and frankly ridiculous that position may be.

RainyDay wrote: »

The victims who you seem to wish to ignore are the students who are excluded from certain activities, and made to feel like they not full, normal students of the school.

You seem to want to ignore the fact that the school is a religious ethos school, and the parents do not share the religious ethos of the school are not being asked to participate in activities which are religious in nature, yet it is the school's responsibility to include these children in spite of the fact that their parents do not want them to participate in religious activities...

Would you prefer that the school involved the children in religious activities, in spite of their parents wishes to have them excluded?

It is interesting that pointing out this discrimination seems distasteful to you. And it is also interesting that based on your posts, the entire responsibility for fixing this lies with the parents to 'speak up'.

It's not distasteful to me at all. In order to form any judgement either way, I'd first have to understand what your problem is - you want your children excluded from religious activities, but you want your children included in religious activities?

How do you expect the school to know if you don't tell them? If the school involved your children in religious activities without your express consent, they'd still be in the wrong, so I can understand why they would err on the side of caution so as not to cause offence to you as the children's parent.

You don't assign any responsibility to the school BoM or management to change their approaches to include all students in school activities, unless parents are 'speaking up' to a level that meets your standard.

You seem surprised by that common sense approach? The school has a religious ethos, and so it's taken as a given that some children who do not share that ethos will not be required to participate in those religious activities. That's what you want, isn't it?

Or is it that you expect the BOM and the school to organise activities around your work schedule and in a way which suits you, and they're supposed to be able to guess what and when suits you, without you having to communicate with them?


You've got to be joking, surely?

looksee wrote: »

Isn't it interesting though that the atheists in this forum have the confidence and security to put up with all the evidence-lite nonsense that is being thrown around by theists, and the condescension and smug superiority in their 'knowledge', while their own forum has to defend them against the bould atheists in case their pedestals might be shaken?

It's certainly a contradiction to the offline reality where many atheists don't appear to have the confidence in their principles that they wish to prevent their children from being exposed to ideas which contradict their principles.

Some people aren't satisfied with just preventing their own children from exposure to ideas they disagree with, but they want everyone else's children prevented from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with too! If that's not condescending, arrogant superiority, I don't know what is tbh.

Personally, I would consider one extreme as abhorrent and intolerant as the other, and that's why secularism is a good thing - because some adults just don't know how to play nice together.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But people call themselves all sorts of funny things (which they are entitled to of course), again I do know a 'catholic' who doesn't believe in God. Now I never heard of an atheist who believes in intelligent design, the 2 are non-compatible, but that's not to say those people aren't out there, the world is a mad place.

The theories are a bit nuts if you read them.

But then isn't that what some atheists would say about theists ?

It's nuts to believe in a fairy story that can never be proven.

If you go down that road anyone with an opposing view or one you don't fully understand can be considered nuts.

That wouldn't be a pleasant world to live in.

And while I might inwardly try and figure out your friends thought process, I would never feel like I had the right to tell him he's not Roman Catholic.

That would just feel like a judgement.

Swanner wrote: »

The theories are a bit nuts if you read them.

How about a link or something to back up your claim that plenty, or wait a minute, a handful, of atheists believe in ID and have developed theories in relation to ID which are compatible with atheism?

What makes them more 'nuts' than the teachings of mainstream religions, which are very nuts if you ask me?

RainyDay wrote: »

I've already answered very clearly what I'd expect the school to do in this post. Unsurprisingly (as you well know), I do NOT expect the school to involve the child in religious activities when they know the child is of a different religion or no religion. The school ask about religion on the application form, so they already know the religion (or absence of religion) of each child.

I expect them to run an inclusive school, so that all children in the school participate in school.

Still missing the point of a school with a Roman Catholic ethos then?

As you well know, it's a long way off knowing how to 'play nice together'. It's a matter of public funds being used to support one particular religious approach. I've never come across anyone who wants to 'prevent children from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with'. They just don't want their taxes being used to pay for exposing children to those ideas that they disagree with in a way which says those ideas are right, and everyone else is wrong.

Public funds are apportioned to all national schools regardless of their ethos, so it's simply not the case that one particular religious ethos is favoured over another. ET schools receive the same funding from the State as the funding is to provide for education, depending upon the number of students in the school (off the top of my head I think it's about €264 per student regardless of the ethos of the school).

You really don't have a choice in where your taxes are spent as the State has a duty to provide for the education of all children, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the ethos of the schools. If you'd rather children were not exposed to ideas you disagree with, then you have other options available to you, many of which have been discussed at length in this forum already, but which lack the necessary support to be presented as a viable option for parents.

You're already aware on a small scale at least, how apathetic some parents can be as long as their children are receiving some form of education. They don't care enough to lend their active support to a change in the status quo, and so the status quo shall remain unchanged for the foreseeable future.

I genuinely do appreciate your situation, and I understand where you're coming from, but you're consistently missing the most obvious solution to the problem IMO - lack of involvement and lack of support from other parents. They too have their own priorities just as much as you, or I, or anyone else here has.

RainyDay wrote: »

As you well know, it's a long way off knowing how to 'play nice together'. It's a matter of public funds being used to support one particular religious approach. I've never come across anyone who wants to 'prevent children from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with'. They just don't want their taxes being used to pay for exposing children to those ideas that they disagree with in a way which says those ideas are right, and everyone else is wrong.

Bingo, absolutely that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Public funds are apportioned to all national schools regardless of their ethos, so it's simply not the case that one particular religious ethos is favoured over another. ET schools receive the same funding from the State as the funding is to provide for education, depending upon the number of students in the school (off the top of my head I think it's about €264 per student regardless of the ethos of the school).

That's fine, it evens the playing field somewhat, although given ET is a privately-owned charity, I'm unsure how all the funding business works.

You really don't have a choice in where your taxes are spent as the State has a duty to provide for the education of all children, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the ethos of the schools. If you'd rather children were not exposed to ideas you disagree with, then you have other options available to you, many of which have been discussed at length in this forum already, but which lack the necessary support to be presented as a viable option for parents.

Those choices are harder to get at. Most people have relatively little choice where they send their kids, it will be down to proximity and cost. But it makes more sense to have everyone at a basic standing, being taught -educational- things in school. Indoctrination, into any religion or none, should be an optional thing, not having to go out of one's way to avoid it in places kids are legally obliged to be (in school).

How many people would prefer their kids to have an extra hour of maths, language, science, PE versus catechism?

RainyDay wrote: »

What specific parts of 'Roman Catholic ethos' would rule out including some non-denominational Christmas carols as part of the concert, or having one teacher stay behind to supervise others when most go to Mass, or inviting ALL students and families to the communion and confirmation celebrations?

I can't tell if you're now being purposely obtuse, or if that was a deliberately ridiculous question to highlight the fact that religious activities are part of the ethos of the school, and if you choose to have your children excluded from religious activities, then you can't seriously expect that they should be included in religious activities like the Nativity and the sacraments, and no, I wouldn't expect that that a denominational school should make any provisions for the inclusion of non-denominational principles.

In fact, would it not be living Christian values to actively include all students?

Of course it would, but you don't want that because you don't want your children to participate in religion.

I don't have a choice in where taxes are spent, but as a citizen, we ALL have an interest in how they are spent. To spend public money to support the belief system of SOME people is just plain wrong.

I can't argue with that.

Once again, blame the parents - and still not a single word from you to suggest that you believe that schools should be inclusive as a basic value, and not wait for parents to kick up a fuss - very telling.

Very telling that I would expect parents to be responsible for their children's education? Of course schools should be inclusive as a basic value, but if parents want their children excluded from being taught those basic values, then those parents can't have it both ways, no matter how much of a fuss they kick up!

It's really funny how you attack 'indoctrination with atheist dogma' which being completely blind to the institutionalised indoctrination with RC dogma that has been going on for a couple of hundred years. There should be no indoctrination with any dogma in schools. Let parents arrange their own indoctrination at their own expense if that is their thing.

They already do that by enrolling their children in schools where their children are indoctrinated as part of a religious community. That's the whole point of having their children baptised, to become part of that religious community, and sending their children to schools which are part of that religious community is parents indoctrinating their children at their own expense.

If you don't want to support the indoctrination of religious dogma in children in schools where you know the primary purpose of the school is indoctrination, then don't enrol your children in that particular school. Let parents who don't want their children indoctrinated make alternative arrangements at their own expense!

It's a standard tactic, when running out of any sensible or rational debate - just get aggressive and throw in a touch of racism too.

Well the OP and a few other posters got off to a great start by suggesting that some parents were insane, and their children are massive dorks, and that was mild in comparison to another poster who suggested that any adults who give communion should be shot (although admittedly, I think we all understood they were on a wind-up, desperate attention seeking to illicit a reaction), but you probably turned a blind eye to those posts.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Assuming I am willing to have my children segregated from others purely on the grounds of religion, which I am not, please outline the practical alternatives to religious ethos schooling available to me.




...




...



Nope. There aren't any. That's the problem. You don't get it and it doesn't seem that you want to either.

There are any number of alternatives, and while I wouldn't tell anyone else what to do, if I wanted to segregate my child (for any reason), there are any number of ways in which I could do that. It's simply a question of priorities. If I were in a position where our positions were reversed, I would do everything within my power to ensure that my child received the type of education I wanted.

I already involve myself as much as I can in ensuring my child receives the type of education I want, and I've had to make plenty of sacrifices and trade-offs in my personal and professional life in order to ensure that it isn't just practical, but that it's a reality.

Gallagher1 wrote: »

Atheists have absolutely zero problem learning new ideas provided they contain a crucial ingredient.

Evidence.

I never said they didn't. And I would be of a similar way of thinking however we do differ somewhat in that I'm still open to new ideas regardless of the evidence especially when the evidence can neither prove nor disprove the theory.

In other words I won't dismiss an idea based on inconclusive evidence or on the fact that my own experience suggests otherwise.. Having given it a great deal of thought I may eventually fall on one side or the other but even then I will remain open minded to alternative possibilities.

Remember, years ago everyone thought the Earth was flat. Why ? Because that's what the evidence suggested. They were wrong as was the evidence.

It took a brilliant and free thinking open mind to see past the "evidence" and challenge the collective human "experience" and belief.

15 years ago I probably would have been in total agreement with you but the more I challenged my beliefs or lack of at the time, the more I evolved and eventually came to realise that I could see evidence of a deity in almost everything natural in the world around me.

Nothing had changed but my experience. I was still looking at the same objects but now I was experiencing them differently

So yet again I had to go back and reevaluate everything, now I had evidence of a supernatural force and had to challenge myself again. It took a long long time but I've since come to accept that force as my "God".

Point is...If we don't challenge our beliefs we don't grow and raising a child as an atheist with a total ban on any religious knowledge is not challenging your beliefs. It's indoctrination plain and simple.

Gallagher1 wrote: »

If someone proved God's existence tomorrow there would be two certainities
1) We would all wholehearted accept this God
2) The person who proved it would be hailed as the greatest mind in the history of mankind.

I don't share your optimism and I certainly don't agree with No. 1. Again your assuming to speak for everyone and that everyone will share your view once the evidence is presented. They won't. Most will, but many others will continue to disbelieve and find arguments against this newly discovered God. It's our nature to question.

I also think the world would be cast into decades, maybe even centuries of turmoil as ideologies and world religions struggle to realign and find their place in a new world order. I honestly wouldn't want to be around for it.

Gallagher1 wrote: »

Until then I refuse to believe in God and wouldn't want my future children to have sizeable chunks of their educational time taken up by indoctrination into a substance-less faith whether it be Scientology, Mormonism or, dare I say, Christianity.

I don't think anyone is questioning your right to refuse to believe in God. How could they ? Likewise you're absolutely within your right to indoctrinate your children into atheism or any other belief / non belief system you choose.

My only point was that if you receive an unbalanced education on a topic you will have not have a balanced perspective on said topic. That was all.