Culture and faith

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Perhaps I meant just what I said.

I'm off, talk to sugiezd.

Be on your way then, and be well.

I don't see why so many people on this forum think that mocking something is generally a positive thing. To me it's just sheer intellectual laziness when someone substitutes mockery for argument.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I think so too, although I would like to see more ethics taught at school.

As an ethics instructor, I agree wholeheartedly! Though I'm not sure why religious ethical theories shouldn't be taught along side the secular ones. Every ethical theory has its idiosyncratic metaphysics, after all. It would be a shame to dispense with Natural Law theory just because its best versions are Thomistic.

Originally posted by bbarr
As an ethics instructor, I agree wholeheartedly! Though I'm not sure why religious ethical theories shouldn't be taught along side the secular ones. Every ethical theory has its idiosyncratic metaphysics, after all. It would be a shame to dispense with Natural Law theory just because its best versions are Thomistic.

In my skewed view of secular education, religious ethics would indeed be taught, just not privileged.

(I'm really gone now).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Possibly because many educational faculties have been taken over by a certain anti-religious ideology?

Quick question: When you were in school, were you ever taught about Christopher Columbus? Do you remember what the reason was for the opposition he faced?

Offf hand no - guess they thought he'd fall off the end of the world?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Be on your way then, and be well.

I don't see why so many people on this forum think that mocking something is generally a positive thing. To me it's just sheer intellectual laziness when someone substitutes mockery for argument.

I agree, though I confess to having been guilty mayself.

The problem is that some "points" raised by the god squad (in itself a mocking term) are so ludicrous as to demand nothing less,

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Possibly because many educational faculties have been taken over by a certain anti-religious ideology?

And why could this be? Possibly because they are run by educated people? Or are politicians anti-religious?
Considering that a very large proportion of educational institutions were started (and many continue to be run by) religious institutions, it seems interesting that religion remains on the back-burner.
Some of my ancestors were Quakers. They lived at a time in England when religious education was to a certain extent discouraged (keeping the Bible in latin etc). This was probably largely for political reasons, but politics is a large part of any organization including churches.
Most churches to this day discourage dissenting opinions and rather preach that the opinions or doctrines of the specific denomination be taken without question. They also discourage listening to ideas from other denominations. This would generally make it very difficult to teach religious ideas in schools.

[edit]
I went to a Roman Catholic secondary school and did Religious Education. The syllabus (set by a group of churches) included some very naive points of view, for example a claim that animals are incapable of thought and act only on 'instinct'.
I think one reason for religion being discouraged in the classroom is that it is often in conflict with science.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And why could this be? Possibly because they are run by educated people? Or are politicians anti-religious?
Considering that a very large proportion of educational institutions were started (and many continue to be run by) religious institutions, it seems interesting that religion remains on the back-burner.
Some of my ancestors were Quakers. They lived ...[text shortened]... for religion being discouraged in the classroom is that it is often in conflict with science.

Religion has its place in education - from the point of view that it gives insight into other cultures and points of view than your own.

On the other hand, religion as a basis for education must be wrong in so far as it puts forward that particular religion's beliefs as being true.

In the worse case, partularly for younger chlidren, religion is taught by the same people as teach everything else, in the same way, as facts.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Possibly because many educational faculties have been taken over by a certain anti-religious ideology?

Quick question: When you were in school, were you ever taught about Christopher Columbus? Do you remember what the reason was for the opposition he faced?

I don't think so. The school I attended was officially Christian, but most of my fellows there just couldn't be bothered with religion. Those who went to church (like me) tended to do so because they'd been introduced to it by their parents. There were also some break-time evangelists who conducted meetings in classrooms, but they did their own thing. I think the "anti-religious" element in schooling is totally exaggerated. Why should churches need the backing of school to shore up their dwindling congregations? The problem lies with the perceived irrelevance of churches themselves. You can't blame it on secular schooling.

The only country I know of where prayer is forbidden at school is the USA (there must be others, what are they?) but it has one of the more religious populations out there, as far as I can gather.

It speaks volumes about my schooling that I have no idea what your second question is about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And why could this be? Possibly because they are run by educated people? Or are politicians anti-religious?
Considering that a very large proportion of educational institutions were started (and many continue to be run by) religious institutions, it seems interesting that religion remains on the back-burner.
Some of my ancestors were Quakers. They lived ...[text shortened]... for religion being discouraged in the classroom is that it is often in conflict with science.

And why could this be? Possibly because they are run by educated people?

Are you saying that schools were not run by educated people before?

Considering that a very large proportion of educational institutions were started (and many continue to be run by) religious institutions, it seems interesting that religion remains on the back-burner.

You're speaking of primary and secondary education. I was speaking largely about higher education; though my comments apply to primary/secondary education as well to a limited extent.

Of course, many religious institutions themselves were taken over by faculty who sported an anti-religious agenda.

Some of my ancestors were Quakers. They lived at a time in England when religious education was to a certain extent discouraged (keeping the Bible in latin etc).

Really? Do you want to re-check your history on that point (re: Latin Bibles)?

My earlier question to sequiezd regarding Columbus was also intended to illustrate a similar point.

The syllabus (set by a group of churches) included some very naive points of view, for example a claim that animals are incapable of thought and act only on 'instinct'.

Isn't that true of most animals? Humans aside, I can think of only primates and dolphins for whom that wouldn't apply.

Besides, wouldn't you consider thought itself a complex high-level pattern of biological instincts according to "science"?

(Also, I'm curious as to how a "group of churches" set the syllabus for an RC school. Could you elaborate more on this?)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Be on your way then, and be well.

I don't see why so many people on this forum think that mocking something is generally a positive thing. To me it's just sheer intellectual laziness when someone substitutes mockery for argument.

Something that calls for mockery is mocked; something that calls for serious argument is soberly discussed. One may sometimes have a sober discussion as to why something is being mocked (I'm doing that in Debates with "Was Mohammed a Pedophile?"😉 or mock the object of serious discussion.

All I'm saying is that any religion (and organisation) should be able to take the mickey out of itself, or it risks becoming pompous and inflated. One must never forget to let the Trickster have its say.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't think so. The school I attended was officially Christian, but most of my fellows there just couldn't be bothered with religion. Those who went to church (like me) tended to do so because they'd been introduced to it by their parents. There were also some break-time evangelists who conducted meetings in classrooms, but they did their own thing. ...[text shortened]... speaks volumes about my schooling that I have no idea what your second question is about.

I think the "anti-religious" element in schooling is totally exaggerated.

I disagree. I think it's generally under-reported.

Why should churches need the backing of school to shore up their dwindling congregations?

Many (if not most) religious educational institutions today were set up long before there were any "dwindling congregations".

Indeed, some of them were set up before there were any secular institutions.

t speaks volumes about my schooling that I have no idea what your second question is about.

Were you never taught about Christopher Columbus at school?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I think the "anti-religious" element in schooling is totally exaggerated.

I disagree. I think it's generally under-reported.

Why should churches need the backing of school to shore up their dwindling congregations?

Many (if not most) religious educational institutions today were set up long before there were any "dwindling congr ...[text shortened]... econd question is about.[/b]

Were you never taught about Christopher Columbus at school?[/b]

Oh well, I guess we disagree about that then.

I don't get the point of your second comment. Yes, churches used to have much bigger congregations and religion is older than the secular state. And?

We touched on Columbus in only the most superficial manner.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Oh well, I guess we disagree about that then.

I don't get the point of your second comment. Yes, churches used to have much bigger congregations and religion is older than the secular state. And?

We touched on Columbus in only the most superficial manner.

I don't get the point of your second comment. Yes, churches used to have much bigger congregations and religion is older than the secular state. And?

And your point about churches using schools to shore up dwindling congregations doesn't hold water.

We touched on Columbus in only the most superficial manner.

So did we. Do you remember being taught anything beside the mere fact that Columbus went across to the Americas in 1492 (? not sure)?

Originally posted by lucifershammer

And your point about churches starting schools to shore up dwindling congregations doesn't hold water.

[b]We touched on Columbus in only the most superficial manner.

So did we. Do you remember being taught anything beside the mere fact that Columbus went across to the Americas in 1492 (? not sure)?[/b]

I didn't claim that at all. You appear to be saying that an (actively?) anti-religious educational system is responsible for people losing interest in religion (dwindling congregations); I'm disputing that and asking whether churches really need schools to back them up as well, since they should have enough interest in and of themselves to attract people whether religion is promoted at school or not.

As for Columbus, the easy way is to make your point and educate me at the same time.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I didn't claim that at all. You appear to be saying that an (actively?) anti-religious educational system is responsible for people losing interest in religion (dwindling congregations); I'm disputing that and asking whether churches really need schools to back them up as well, since they should have enough interest in and of themselves to attract peop ...[text shortened]... not.

As for Columbus, the easy way is to make your point and educate me at the same time.

Faith schools (in the West anyway) were created with the express intention of educating children of the faithful in the faith. So RE is an integral part of the mission of the faith schools.

EDIT: It's not clear how your question really disputes mine.

As for Columbus, the most effective way for me to make my point is the Socratic one. Of course it needn't be Chris Columbus per se -- but that's one of the easier examples.