And we thought evolution was tough
: British education authorities plan to require the teaching of atheism in religion class.
19 responses to “And we thought evolution was tough”
-
Why can’t schools just stick to academics and allow me to teach my kids religion. That is why they go to Catechism or Sunday school. Let the atheists teach atheism to their kids. I am sick of schools and their social engineering. Leave religion or lack of, to parents.
-
Hey, why worry. The Islamists plan to take over Britain, anyway. Let’s see what the nitwit secularists will say when the Koran becomes the only instruction book then.
-
It looks like this is a “survey of world religions” type class. If they can avoid evangelizing, I think it’s a fine idea.
-
Aren’t they going to include Socialism? It’s the most popular religion in the Western world nowadays.
-
I am an athiest and I am unhappy about this. It is almost as if the only people who may be alone with their beliefs are liberals, everyone else must be assaulted, bludgened into comformity. Diversity is a word meaning “you don’t believe the same as me yet”. Go away, “I want to be alone” I want to hear myself think. Oh yeah that’s right it’s the thinking part they have a problem with. And you thought there were no conservative athiests. You were not thinking, see it’s working on you too.
-
My reaction seems a little different than others here … atheism is a religion, so why not teach it as such. What is atheism but a faith-based position that God doesn’t exist. I mean, there is no proof God doesn’t exist, and plenty of intellectually sound reasons to believe that he does, so atheism is nothing more than another form of religious faith. Why not teach it as such? I mean, if you’re going to have a reglion class, you should cover all religions, no?
-
From the OpEd in today’s Daily Telegraph:
“This is, admittedly, a delicate area for liberals. How do they reconcile the desire to talk children out of their religious beliefs with their policy of genuflecting towards the cultural traditions of ethnic minorities, most of which are explicitly religious? It would be interesting to watch a right-on primary school teacher attempting to explain to a devout Muslim father why his child should investigate atheism. But that is unlikely to happen. The proposals are not directed at Islam: the impulse behind them – like the decision to ban prayers from graduation ceremonies at Edinburgh university, which we report today – is anti-Christian rather than anti-religious.
It is also authoritarian. It reflects the belief that parents who pass on the Christian faith are guilty of indoctrinating their children, and that it is the role of the state to stop them. The IPPR and its allies in the Government are not so much interested in promoting diversity as in replacing one set of orthodoxies by another: the joyless ideology of cultural relativism.”
Well put, methinks. -
This just makes me think of The Big Lebowski
“Ve are nihilists Mr. Lebowski. Ve belieeeeve in nooosssink!” -
Reading the original article (Guardian Unlimited) reveals that the idea is based on some sort of assumption that the majority of British people must be atheist because they do not adhere to any organised religion. Is atheism now just a byword for spiritual indolence? Voltaire would turn in his grave!
-
Oh dear, a post on atheism. I’m surprised you’re not up to triple figures in the comments by now. These sort of things tend to generate rather more heat than light. I’d like to see someone post something that says Mac users tend to be atheist believers in evolution, and PC users are Biblical creationists (and Linux users eat babies.) It would be the ur-Holy War post. You could stand back and warm your hands over the cheery crackle of the flames.
FWIW, I agree with Richard Dawkins that the terms ‘Muslim children’ or ‘Christian children’ have about as much validity as ‘Keynesian children’ or ‘monetarist children’. There, that’s showed my hand. -
“the terms ‘Muslim children’ or ‘Christian children’ have about as much validity as ‘Keynesian children’ or ‘monetarist children’. “
It would if parents for millenia had been instilling the precepts of competing economic dogmas in their children. I don’t know about you but, when I was growing up, my family did not make it a habit every Sunday to dress up and go down to the local Federal Reserve for a sermon on the evils of loose money and subsequent social interaction with others of like interests.
Like much of what Dawkins has to say, this appears deep and thought provoking until you realize just how specious it is. -
David: I agree with Reid; Dawkins is just talking out of his, um, hat. The thing is, referring to oneself as a “Christian” person, or what have you, and therefore referring to one’s children as “Christian,” “Muslim,” or whatever, is part of the way human beings have communicated and designated themselves over those centuries that there have been Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Now, I am willing to grant that in other parts of the world where different religions hold sway, this may not be the custom: I don’t know if Buddhists in Burma* refer to themselves as such in such a way. But all this is to say: that is just Mr. Dawkins’ way of being cute, and trying to stick it to religion ‘cos he don’t believe in it.
As for the atheism thing, I’d argue that it’s more philosophy than religion, though it does approach that gray area where philosophy and religion meet when it comes to the fervor of some of its adherents. After all, the existence of a god or gods can neither be proven nor disproven. But I am not so sure that it’s not a fit subject for a religion class. After all, in teaching about religion (as opposed to indoctrinating in one religion) one should be made aware of religion’s antithesis. -
I forgot this:
*It will always be Burma to me. And Rangoon! -
I don’t see what the big deal about this is. I finished school over 10 years ago and even back then we were taught about atheism in religious education class as if it was the most normal thing in the world. It obviously did not persuade the religious students to drop their religion, just as the primarily Christian viewpoints of the religious education class in general did not persuade the non-religious students to adopt Christianity or any other religion.
Personally, I believe that religious education has no place in school and should be left to the respective families and religious organisations. But in countries that do teach religious education, I don’t see why atheism should not be part of the curriculum. -
Makes sense; Atheists must rely on a similar amount of faith to believe in their position, just as religious people do.
2 points for whoever quoted The Big Lebowskit. “Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, but at least it’s an ethos.” -
Others have already said it, but I also think it’s wholly appropriate to teach atheism in a religion class. Howard and Andrea nail it, on one hand, it’s a religion onto itself. On the other, even if you don’t consider it such it is still relevant to any religious study.
-
What the United Kingdom needs, and doesn’t have, is something like the United States first amendment to the constitution. Then they could fight over having a minute of silence at the beginning of the school day, rather than what belief system to teach in their mandatory religion classes.
Full disclosure: I am not only an Anglophile but a member of the Anglican Communion. -
Religion is unreasoned belief, Atheism is reasoned unbelief. Whether one is philosophy and the other a creed is not important. The majority of British people have neither a philosophy nor a creed, but indigestion! And nobody speaks up for us.
What are we given when we can no longer stomach being taught a belief system? An unbelief system!
When can we ever rest from this fruitless search for meaning? Can’t we have apathy? -
Sarah says: “The Islamists plan to take over Britain, anyway…”
Well: current UK population 58.7 million; Muslims 1.6 million.
Not a hope.
