Petition: Abolish faith schools (UK) - Part 2!

[Lee H]

How long did it take God to create Heaven. Answer: 1 day.
How long did it take God to create the Universe. Answer: 6 days.

There was also a "science" booklet that said that when the astronauts went to the moon they found the moon to be 4-10,000 years old, the same age as the Earth.

I'm sorry but that's shocking. Teaching such mis-information is crazy when we are expanding our boundaries of knowledge in this day and age.

I bet he put fossils in rocks just to confuse the non-believers didn't he

[Lucio]

It's unfortunate that *some* faith schools that cause problems, the ones that feel they must militantly defend their beliefs against aethiests.

That said, who actually knows, for definate, that they're wrong and we're right? For all we know, we could be as heavily indoctrinated by "Science" as those kids are by their religion. Beyond what we can sense directly, a lot of it does come down to faith.

Take physicists as an example, they take it as a matter of faith that there's a Higgs boson particle out there because it makes the world around them make more sense. That's no different to the way people view God, it's something that cannot be percieved that makes the world make sense.


The biggest problem with religion, isn't what they are teaching, it's that what they are teaching doesn't allow room for "well, I might be wrong", Science at least continually tries and adapts and changes it's view as we learn more.

[Azza]

That faith school in Dispatches was indeed highly worrying.


What if these kids realise when they are 18/19 or older that what they have been doing their whole life was a waste of time. They will have gained nothing from these "faith schools" what so ever.

[Blitzen]

That said, who actually knows, for definate, that they're wrong and we're right?

I do for one........and several billion others will agree i wouldve thought.

Scientists use theory. But they also prove facts.
The fact that people like the Arch Bish of Canterbury thinkks he is right no matter what is the annoying part of religion.

Faith is a great thing IF it makes you content though.......that is where it has its place.

Many people find peace by having something to believe in. If thats what it gives then it cant be all that bad.

[MadduckUK]

What if these kids realise when they are 18/19 or older that what they have been doing their whole life was a waste of time.

art students?

[Blitzen]

or students in general

(/i await the abuse)

[Zadock]

art students?

Reminds me of a joke...


The engineering graduate asks "how does it work?"

The science graduate asks "why does it work?"

The accounting graduates asks "how much will it cost?"

The art graduate asks... "do you want chips with that?"

[G4Z]

It's unfortunate that *some* faith schools that cause problems, the ones that feel they must militantly defend their beliefs against aethiests.

That said, who actually knows, for definate, that they're wrong and we're right? For all we know, we could be as heavily indoctrinated by "Science" as those kids are by their religion. Beyond what we can sense directly, a lot of it does come down to faith.

Well, I feel pretty certain that I am right on this one yep. Thankfully for me in the event that I am totally wrong and I appear before a big set of pearly gates I can console myself that even if I had decided to believe in a magic sky man it was a million to one shot of picking the right god or even particular demonnation within a religion anyway so I was pretty much screwed before I started.

Take physicists as an example, they take it as a matter of faith that there's a Higgs boson particle out there because it makes the world around them make more sense. That's no different to the way people view God, it's something that cannot be percieved that makes the world make sense.

Don't agree mate, physicists theorise, they suppose and sometimes they assume. They do not have faith, faith is just another word for ignorance and I really don't think you can accuse particle physicists of that.

The biggest problem with religion, isn't what they are teaching, it's that what they are teaching doesn't allow room for "well, I might be wrong", Science at least continually tries and adapts and changes it's view as we learn more.

Sort of agree, I do think though that what they are teaching IS wrong and they shouldn't be teaching anybody so I really can't agree with the thrust of what you are saying.

[Main]

It's unfortunate that *some* faith schools that cause problems, the ones that feel they must militantly defend their beliefs against aethiests.

I think that's really the heart of the problem, plenty of faith schools are in fact, decent, balanced schools, there are just some out there that would rather not be. Don't judge the majority by the minority.

I went to a faith school. Why? It was regarded as one of the better schools in the area, there wasn't really anything else to it. I wasn't religious going in, and am even less so now. This particular school was convent school too (it was an all girls school for quite some time) and some of the nuns were teachers. Funny thing is these people who'd dedicated their lives to God had some of the most balanced views on religion I've ever come across.

Also there was none of that creationism crap! I did philosphy and ethics as an AS and the arguement and it's many many many faults were presented early on by one of the more religious teachers among the entire staff.


...although I will throw some meat to the lions: in my last year I got to have a play with the RE department's new toy, one of those interactive whiteboards, God only know what they'd use it for. At the same time the physics lab equipment continued to slowly die off as bits got more antiquated.

[Lucio]

Don't agree mate, physicists theorise, they suppose and sometimes they assume. They do not have faith, faith is just another word for ignorance and I really don't think you can accuse particle physicists of that.

I disagree, faith is simply believing in something that you cannot observe, it's nothing to do with being ignorant. We cannot, as yet, observe a Higgs Bosun, they're making theories and suppositions about it, and are trying to find it, but it's still an unknown. You could in theory, divine an experiment to find God, and spend years and years chasing after it, in the same way physicists chase after elusive particles.

If you want to pick a difference, I'd argue it came down to this. A theologist is someone who has accepted that this is how it is, and doesn't ask any more questions. A scientist is one who goes "well that seems ok, but what else?"

[Rosaline]

I disagree, faith is simply believing in something that you cannot observe, it's nothing to do with being ignorant. We cannot, as yet, observe a Higgs Bosun, they're making theories and suppositions about it, and are trying to find it, but it's still an unknown.

There is a marked difference between an hypothesis and a belief. A belief is simply taken to be true, whereas a hypothesis is assumed to be true given certain testable criteria.

The joy of science is that if a hypothesis is found to be wrong, work based upon an assumption of that hypothesis is not wrong - it simply applies to a different world state Hence the work performed isn't useless, it just enhances our overall understanding of possibilities.

If something cannot be falsified, it does not really belong in the hard sciences. Where hypothesises exist that are based upon quantitative rather than qualitative research, they are typically formed to allow for the existance of exceptions.

You could in theory, divine an experiment to find God, and spend years and years chasing after it, in the same way physicists chase after elusive particles.

Actually, you couldn't. Assuming that we allow the religious groups to amend the definition of God(s) so that they have not already been falsified, we arrive at a point which makes it clear that the only remaining space (in terms of the total problem space for this question) is beyond the examination of the hard sciences - the results are otherwise indistinguishable from existing known methods of action.

Does this mean there cannot be a God(s)? No, not in my opinion. But it means that we must accept the implied nature of God this gives. Does this nature even directly contradict the intent of any spiritual teaching? Actually, I seriously doubt that (aside from taking certain interpretations of scientific matters discussed such texts within as absolute decreed truth)

If you want to pick a difference, I'd argue it came down to this. A theologist is someone who has accepted that this is how it is, and doesn't ask any more questions. A scientist is one who goes "well that seems ok, but what else?"

Your use of "accepted" here seems a bit strange, implying a certain degree of righteousness in this decision.

I find people's desire for black and white over various topics quite puzzling. There's no reason why spirituality and science cannot go hand in hand - science gives us avenues to the most awe inspiring observations and creations, and spirituality fills in matters that science will simply not be able to establish any facts regarding (such as the origin of the big bang, and more importantly, human morality).

[fuddam]

It's funny reading through these posts to come to the same old conclusion. It's also pretty sad: the number of posters who somehow believe they are able to either teach or read or understand the world in an 'objective' fashion by excluding any matters of faith / spiritual nature.

eg: I don't want my kids to grow up brainwashed, I want them to be able to make their own choices

SUCH bollocks. such a complete lack of understanding of semiotics, of the battle for meaning in any communication.

sigh.

cutting your children off from religious discussion / education (eg by going to completely secular school) in no way encourages objectivity - it just limits their choices.

[Sinizter]

I wouldnt want my kids taught religion in school - and definitely not as fact to be examined on. Religion is to be taught at home by parents or some sort of religious institution during weekends/evenings. Not during school time.

[directhex]

religion is a personal matter. whilst i think schools should be entirely secular, i also think there's value in a balanced & objective education about world religions - i.e. RE lessons - in order to make them aware of the world at large (and the part religion plays in it). not doing so is denying them understanding of a topic which is important to many people in different ways. you don't need to force-feed people bibles for there to be value in teaching the core tenants of the major world religions

when someone comes to their OWN spiritual realizations, regardless of age, then that's their decision.

[TooNice]

I'd be a bit concerned if the exam questions as posted on the previous page are common, or even a significant minority. Certainly, I believe that any school should as a whole be regulated in the same way as any other rule. There is nothing wrong in my view if they have to pray X times per day, or wishes to use the Bible as reading material (well, assuming the text are in plain English), but creationalism should not be included in a 'Science' class.

[G4Z]

It's funny reading through these posts to come to the same old conclusion. It's also pretty sad: the number of posters who somehow believe they are able to either teach or read or understand the world in an 'objective' fashion by excluding any matters of faith / spiritual nature.

eg: I don't want my kids to grow up brainwashed, I want them to be able to make their own choices

SUCH bollocks. such a complete lack of understanding of semiotics, of the battle for meaning in any communication.

sigh.

cutting your children off from religious discussion / education (eg by going to completely secular school) in no way encourages objectivity - it just limits their choices.

Firstly, welcome back Fuddam, not seen you in GD for a while.

Secondly, I don't think you understand what objective means. There is nothing objective about religion since its all in the minds of people. Besides which, I am not sure anybody is advocating hiding religion from their children. If I decide to have children I won't be hiding it from them, on the contrary I will be explaining exactly why the idea is completely without merit and responsible for some of the worst atrocities in the world.