Faith Schools Menace? Review: God Delusion
August 17, 2010 by Ewan Roberts
Filed under - Home, Reviews
FAITH SCHOOLS MENACE?: Wednesday 18th August, More4, 9pm ALERT ME
Having Richard Dawkins present a show about faith schools is like having Bill O’Reilly present a show about politics or abortion or homosexuality or, well, anything really – it’s probably not going to be impartial. Unlike the flame-tongued host of The O’Reilly Factor, Dawkins never bludgeons you into submitting to his ideals (nor would he dream to), but subtly probes and questions our beliefs. He presents the evidence and invites us to draw our own conclusions.
Dawkins meets Helen and Troy (the irony of whose names has only just dawned on me), a pair of ‘faith fakers’ who converted to Catholicism so their children could get into the successful local faith school. They reveal that their priest was open to not so subtle bribes – a £5000 donation to fix a broken roof would guarantee a place at the school.
While Dawkins is concerned with the exclusive (and as a result, divisive) nature of faith schools, his main gripe is with the imposition of a parent’s religious views onto an innocent child (or ‘sponge’) who is susceptible to brainwashing and incapable of drawing their own conclusions. A trip to Northern Ireland highlights the barriers that faith schools can create, and the hostilities they can provoke.
But faith schools are a nationwide problem. “Young children,” says Dawkins, “are uniquely vulnerable to simply believing whatever adults tell them.” The most saddening and shocking example of this sees one “open-minded” Muslim class (who at least opened their doors to Dawkins and his camera crew, unlike Jewish or Catholic schools) reject the theory of evolution in favour of creationism – it’s slightly disheartening to see faith overrule irrefutable fact so nonchalantly.
This is hardly a surprising trend when religion is given priority over science. We are told of one school who taught eight hours of religious studies per fortnight, while only teaching six hours of science. Further to this, many faith schools can teach their own syllabus in Religious Education, unregulated by Ofsted.
It won’t shock anyone to know that the man who authored The God Delusion and backed a campaign to have the Pope arrested for “crimes against humanity” ultimately concludes that faiths schools are indoctrinating and dividing children. Dawkins urges us to “unleash children’s curiosity and never limit their questions” by abolishing faith schools. It’s a compelling argument.
On the subject of Richard Dawkins programme Faith Schools Menace?
You say my mail address will not be published. I sincerely hope that you will stick to this.
I belive that many schools in Britian, are indoctrinating our country’s children with unhealthy secularism/false beliefs. I left school in the mid 1980′s. I attended two Church of England Primary Schools and there was very little Christian teaching or activity. It did not for example, prevent the schools from having reading books about witches(occult)on the reading shelves. When I reached Comprehensive School, apart from a few very short R.E lessons in the first couple years there was no Christian content, that I can remember. There were piles of hymn books left from a former era.
I firmly believe that the writers of text books in Science should be very careful in what they publish, where there are theories they should say that this is a theory and a disproved scientific theory should also not be published as a fact. For example, it is unproved that they world is millions of years old and yet this is often being presented as a fact.
I agree with Billy Graham’s daughter (it equally applies in Britain) we have left God out of our state schools and then we wonder why our nation is in such a mess. The Christian Faith has a lot to offer our nation. In fact it is vital to our surivial as a nation. This country needs TRUE CHRISTIAN VALUES!
The opposite values: free love/sex, homosexuality, sexual abuse and the occult are very destructive to our families and to the nation as a whole. I admire the stand the Conservatives made during the 1980′s against the promotion of homosexuality in schools and I AM SICKENED with how this nation has turned to the exact opposite! Where did our good moral values go? Did they evaporate during an episode of Dallas and other soaps?
Yours Extremely Concerned.
Be quiet Lynn
Is there any surer and quicker way of signalling that you aren’t worth listening to than uttering the phrase “I agree with Billy Graham’s daughter”?
Evolution is a fact; Darwin’s idea of Natural Selection is one theory to explain it. Just like Gravity is a fact and Einstein’s General Relativity is one theory to explain it.
“Intelligent Design” and Creationism have as much place in schools as Flat Earthism.
Hang on, Grrrr and Amused. Whatever happened to ‘I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death hour right to say it’?
Three comments so far and I spot two bigots. Guess who?
well reading that rubbish lynn just wrote was 1 min ill never get back. True Christian values my arse. She is the type of person that would be exiled in my regime……’unproved that the world is millions of years old’……’homosexuality is destructive to our families’…….I’m sure that she when to ‘special’ school rather than an actual school. But I spose its her parents that are to blame….. indoctrinating her so well. Scum
Can’t help this – ninety minutes later and I’m still seething at ‘Is there any surer and quicker way of signalling that you aren’t worth listening to than uttering the phrase “I agree with Billy Graham’s daughter”?’
Why should being the daughter of Billy Graham render a woman incapable of rational thought and independent opinion?
Strikes me that the ‘surer and quicker way of signalling that you aren’t worth listening to’ is to make a stupid remark like that!
I find the issue very difficult. I am, to all intents and purposes, a secular person ~ no religious convictions other than an interest in Buddhism. I have worried recently at the way a very dear Muslim friend of mine creates a powerful commitment to Islam in her very young children. I have begun to think maybe I should try and talk to her about this but I know she is a loving mother and a devout Muslim and would be heartbroken if her children did notaccept the messages of Islam that she feeds them with. I struggle with this, not wanting to compound the appalling prejudoice she and others of her faith suffer in Britain ~ I don’t want to add to her feelings of opression.
Lynn, you make a fair point about scientific theory being declared as fact. To have a truly fair balance there perhaps should be a “Dawkins caveat” at the start of every year of science pointing out that scientific fact is not quite the same as an irrefutable objective truth.
On similar lines, by Dawkins own reasoning, perhaps both science and religion should only be taught in secondary school. After all, declaring science as truth has exactly the same effect as religion in so far as it inculcates a way of thinking. One critical assumption that Dawkins makes is that reason gets the right answer and provides optimal solutions. This is an incredibly natural and sensible assumption to make, but he forgets that this is in fact an assumption, one that cannot be proved. He then judges religion using these assumptions, when the religious have chosen not to subscribe to them. In this sense, I agree with other reviewers who have accused him of refusing to judge religion by its own terms.
However, while Dawkins arguments do not hold philosophical water, they teem with astute observations and powerful implications on a social level. He makes a very convincing case for the divisive and inegalitarian nature of faith schools, and that’s without even going into the indoctrination side of the argument. Further, the plethora of instances where religion has and often continues to cost money and lives hardly helps the religious corner in this argument. In a similar way, if we dropped the religious pretext, the Pope’s past actions have certainly been destructive (i.e. contraception in Africa), even if he was entitled to take such action. The list of examples where on a social level religion is quantifiably damaging soon racks up and one starts to sympathise with Dawkins’ frustration with religion.
But regardless how much of Dawkins’s work one is in accord with, it is both refreshing and entertaining to have a scientist step up take the judgemental standards and invasive proselytism that characterises many religions and administer it right back to them. His incendiary references to religious followers is, as he quite rightly puts it, a scientist standing up and saying “enough is enough”.
It stikes me that the blatant lack of even-handedness evident on some of these opinions renders them invalid.
Why is it one step away from child abuse to have your children taught according to your opinions if you’re a person of faith, but laudable to do so if you’re an atheist, secularist or passionate believer in evolution?
It isn’t laudable if you’re an atheist or secularist or simply agnostic to indoctrinate your children with your views. And I’ve made this point already:
“After all, declaring science as truth has exactly the same effect as religion in so far as it inculcates a way of thinking.”
Parents should take a far more passive role in what they teach their children when they are young if they are to have a real choice to form their own views. That applies to those who agree with science as much as it does to those who reject it in favour of religion.
The problem is that with most religions, without going into whether doctrine dictates that believers should indoctrinate their children, the reality is that religious cultures and societies apply pressure to the parents to give their children religion.
While this problem can also arise in zealously scientific parents, it tends not to, which is why religion rightly comes under fire for this, in my opinion.
Of course, this whole argument hinges again on a critical assumption; that every child should have the right to decide for themselves, without the premature interference of anyone, where they stand on science and religion. If anyone disagrees with this assumption, I find their mindset hard to comprehend but at least I know the root of our disagreement is a fundamental one that can’t be bridged.
Sorry, Sensibly, I’m getting contributions out of synch and got both yours
after my last.
Wholeheartedly agree with much of what you say, except, perhaps, this: ‘Further, the plethora of instances where religion has and often continues to cost money and lives hardly helps the religious corner in this argument.’
You fail to balance the asverse effects of religious division with the quiet but widespread good that faith-inspired effort has done and continues to do… the abolition of slavery, universal free education, the setting up of the very first orphanages and alms-houses, free medical aid both here and in developing countries – all concepts instituted and first executed by people of faith. Need I mention the good old Sally Army, still rolling up its sleeves and getting its hands dirty where no-one else will? And organisations like the Christian ‘Tearfund’, founder member of the UK’s Disasters Emergency Committee and first to pitch up with help after the recent Pakistani floods… I could go on…
Cherry, you make a fair point. I think religion does do a lot of damage, but I clearly overlooked many of the constructive, positive effects it has had. In many cases (good and bad), I wonder whether if we removed religion completely, we wouldn’t still have the same humane and inhumane actions (religion has been the excuse to start many wars for instance, but it seems likely another excuse would have been found most of the time anyway).
Dear me. Lynn is the type of person I wouldn’t want anywhere near my childrens education!
As for the age of the Earth (listen carefully as I say this only once); radiometric (google it) dating of rocks and meteorites show that the Earth is around 4550 million years old. It’s all to do with the rate at which some isotopes of certain elements decay to form other isotopes and elements. These rates are known and hence ages of rocks and minerals can be estimated quite accurately. It’s how we know that the asteroid/ comet that helped to wipe out the dinosaurs hit us 65 million years ago. Or maybe it was just a few thousand years ago, according to the creationists! In which case the planet would still be uninhabitable, and we wouldn’t be here to figure it all out.
And you believe this country is in a mess (morally speaking) due to lack of religious education? Luckily, I was educated in a sensible country that doesn’t have a state religion, and therefore no RE or religious observance in state schools. This morals-free, Sodom and Gomorrah type hellhole is knownn as New Zealand. I’ve studied evolution, and I know it to be true, as I have now encountered Homo Sapiens who are no longer using just their mouths for communicating verbally, but are also capable of talking out of their arses as well.
May I suggest one of this county’s great institutions? Try an Open University science course.
Agreement! See, it can be done! A fine note on which to retire with my cocoa!
Night night, Sensibly, sleep well yourself.
I had been a fan of Dawkins long before he turned his critical gaze on religion. Having done that in The God Delusion, I became a fan of Dawkins all over again.
This programme, the first segment of which has just been televised on More4 TV didn’t disappoint either me or my husband.
I have a bit of a problem with Lynn (whose email address won’t be published). I left school 20 years before you Lynn and I can say unequivocally that religion played no part whatsoever in my state school and taxpayer funded primary and secondary schools.
Science obviously played a bigger part in my education, Lynn. I would be far too embarrassed to admit that I was confused by the scientific use of the word ‘theory’ and the hijacking of the same word for other nefarious purposes intended to mislead the uneducated. So dear Sensibly Agnostic, Lynn does not make a fair point about evolution as fact, scientific theory or whatever she wants to call it. Evolution is probably the most evidenced scientific theory there is. It is fact. And that is that.
But that’s okay for you Lynn, because you have made a decision to become a born again christian who believes in epileptic-type physical behaviour. So reality for you passes through a rose-coloured filter and never actually touches any intellect, assuming there is one to which you adhere.
Your attempt at heavy humour actually falls flat, Lynn. Our society does subscribe to a morality that has existed for much longer than any religious book tries to take credit for. Moreover, the last 200 odd years has seen the morality that exists within our society develop and start to encompass all of our society instead of a privileged class. We are getting there, Lynn. We are not going backwards to some fictional book that tries to gain legitimacy by just being ancient.
So, don’t worry, sweetheart, we are fine. And Dawkins must keep on saying what he says because there are just so many really thick people out there who only recognise anything after continued repetition.
Whether one agrees with Dawkins or not, it is important to remember that this attack on faith schools comes from a man who is deeply resentful towards religious faith and specifically towards Christianity. I say this as someone who has studied and works at the same academic institution and has attended and participated in a number of talks and debates he has undertaken. With all due respect to those of you above who believe his comments to be objective and astute- they are not objective they are cleverly subversive and critical. He is in effect turning atheism into a religion and seeking to convert people to this religion.
Dawkins’ intellectual legitimacy is surely called into question by the absolutism of his claims e.g.’suppose we take a FACT, like we and chimpanzees are cousins’; ‘we have not just evolved from apes, we ARE apes’. Not so long ago we burnt people at the stake for claiming that the world was round. It’s interesting to see that human knowledge and understanding has progressed so much that we now KNOW that we know everything. If God exists then surely he is greater than our understanding- otherwise he is not God he is simply equal to humans, so why do we think now know everything?
We cannot prove that God exists (hence ‘faith’) but even less can we prove that he does not exist. If I were Dawkins’ I would want to be absolutely sure that God does not exist before making such a campaign against the Christian faith, if God is there then ignoring him or convincing ourselves that he does not exist is foolish, on the other hand if we find out he does not exist we haven’t lost anything. Those like Dawkins who fight so ardently to convince others that God does not exist seem to have fundamental insecurities about their own beliefs.
As the fight against faith schools goes on, it is interesting to note the correlation between the decreasing role of faith in our society and the disintegration of family and society that we can see in this country today.
I think it’s unfortunate that Dawkins was chosen as the presenter for this show. His outspoken and slightly extreme views (in my opinion) in related areas will cause many believers to dismiss the issues raised.
I think he’s dead right here though, children shouldn’t be indoctrinated into beliefs on faith in school. To those claiming that they likewise shouldn’t be indoctrinated to be atheists you are right, and they aren’t. Not teaching someone to be religious doesn’t mean teaching them to be atheist. Would not going out of your way to teach someone to believe in submarines be an asubmarinist education?
Belief in god (or not) should be a decision made when people are able to make it for themselves. Preaching faith should not be state funded.
What a wonderful contribution from Lynn. We couldn’t ask for a better example of the way that religion rots the mind.
Quote from Bob:
“… I would want to be absolutely sure that God does not exist before making such a campaign against the Christian faith, if God is there then ignoring him or convincing ourselves that he does not exist is foolish, on the other hand if we find out he does not exist we haven’t lost anything.”
That, Bob, is known as Pascal’s wager based on probability theory and has been debunked more times than I have had breakfasts. The ‘wager’ makes false assumptions about the only god being a Judaeo-Christian god. It is a ridiculous and false philosophical point. Shame on you and you imply that you are an educated Boblet.
Dawkins does not and never has tried to create an atheistic religion. What a load of tripe. He repeats, as do we all, that atheism is a religion like not stamp collecting is a hobby, or baldness is a hair colour. Atheism is a lack of theism. That’s what the word means and that is how it is used by those who understand language.
You say you have been involved with Dawkins professionally and find him cleverly subversive and critical.
Well, Bob, I call you out on that. Come clean and disclose who you are and in what way you have engaged with Dawkins. That is a challenge straight and simple; nothing subversive about it whatsoever.
The rest of the points you make are muddled and of little account. You use the word ‘correlation’ incorrectly in terms of your argument; how about the way you might use ‘causative relationship’ to obfuscate? You sneakily attempt to subvert others by using an appeal to authority – yours.
Why do you feel the need to be subversive, misuse language and imply your own authority. All without evidence.
Sorry, Bob; it doesn’t wash.
Veronique:
Those points which you argue well are more than negated by your patronising tone. Whence came you by the idea that ‘Lynn… you have made a decision to become a born again christian who believes in epileptic-type physical behaviour.’ She gives no indication whatsoever of being of the Pentecostal persuasion and for all you know may be the most uptight of Anglo-Catholics.
See, this is what gets my goat about you lot – you think you know what people of faith think, and are about, but your words reveal that not only do you not have the first clue, you jyst want to leap to the first available extreme conclusion. How scientific is that? And if you can’t even argue scientifically, then how secure is your argument?
Furthermore, calling people ‘sweetheart’ (Veronique) or suggesting that they’re talking our of their arses (ian) adds nothing to you argument, but simply serves to terminally undermine your own credibility.
Rabid evangelicalism is universally distasteful, and especially so from Evolutionists, who don’t have a Biblical precident to blame it on.
and BTW, Pascal did not ever offer his wager as a “proof” – so shame on you, Veronique, for trying to imply that you’re of superior intellectual capacity to the man you address as ‘an educated boblet.’
You’ve clearly had only enough education to make you an intellectual snob – you know, like in ‘Educating Rita’, when she changes her name and starts talking in a posh accent? Pathetic.
Andrew asks: ‘Would not going out of your way to teach someone to believe in submarines be an asubmarinist education?’
Not quite, Andrew, but failure to teach them that some people believe in the existence of submarines, and to explain WITHOUT PREJUDICE the reasons for those beliefs, would be to inculcate in them a pro-asubmarinist view….
Cherry – I no longer try to be ‘nice’ as a commenter. On-line commenting is a place of its own; all commenters must divest themselves of thin skins or they don’t survive.
Ridicule is a good substitute for ‘niceness’. I no longer think it profitable to undertake serious discussion with people who are deluded about christian values (in capitals) and assume they know what is part and parcel of a society’s rightness of behaviour.
Moral behaviour has been around in human society long before any religious clap trap tried to highjack it for its own purposes of control and manipulation.
See, I don’t give a damn about what gets your goat, Cherry. People either believe things on faith or they don’t. I don’t to all intents and purposes. Lynn does – she has stated such.
I will ask her – Hey Lynn – did you become a born again Christian or are you still part of the old, cold, tasteless chook of CofE.
Note, Cherry, how I denigrate the efficacy of the CofE with nasty derision. Note also, how Lynn denigrates the basis of this society’s secularism with these quotes:
“…indoctrinating our country’s children with unhealthy secularism/false beliefs.”
“… left God out of our state schools and then we wonder why our nation is in such a mess. The Christian Faith has a lot to offer our nation. In fact it is vital to our surivial (sic) as a nation. This country needs TRUE CHRISTIAN VALUES!”
“… free love/sex, homosexuality, sexual abuse and the occult are very destructive to our families and to the nation as a whole.”
“…against the promotion of homosexuality in schools and I AM SICKENED with how this nation has turned to the exact opposite! Where did our good moral values go?”
Now, I ask you, Cherrykins, how evidenced is that lot? Merely rabid opinion I would have thought with a bit of personal anecdote, maybe unacknowledged fear, thrown in.
“Indoctrinating with unhealthy secularism”? Good grief! Why doesn’t Lynn get the same diatribe from you that I have received? Huh?
Wiki defines evangelicalism as a Protestant Christian theological stream which began in Gt. Britain in the 1730s. It is mightily distasteful as you point out.
Evolution, on the other hand, holds no dogma, or received religious precepts of any kind. I can only presume – please tell me again if I am jumping to available extreme conclusions when I say that my study/understanding of evolution has absolutely zilch to do with anything religious and most certainly not Protestantism.
There is no such word as Evolutionist. I assume you mean Evolutionary Biologist which is Dawkins field of highly successful study.
Game and match.
Veronique:
‘Good grief! Why doesn’t Lynn get the same diatribe from you that I have received? Huh?’ Seemples – because she wasn’t being downright rude to a single individual rather than a whole society that is big enough and – God knows – ugly enough to stand up for itself. You are. And don’t call me Cherrykins.
No such word as Evolutionist? Tell that to the magazine so named, and to the OED! I use the mid-19th Century term specifically to reflect the fact that early evolution was seen as pseudo-science by its contemporaty sciences.
Here’s a dollop of sauce for the gander, Veronique: You criticise Bob’s use of the word ‘correlation’, but in fact his context makes it clear that he means a reciprocal relation between two or more things – which is entirely correct colloqial use.
You, however, accuse Lynn of being on who ‘believes in epileptic-type physical behaviour’. Your use of the word ‘believes’ is woefully inappropriate, as it’s irrefutable fact that such behaviour exists. Belief doesn’t come into it. What you actually mean is to accuse Lynn of indulgence in such behaviour, or of espousing it.
Furthermore, in your haste to be the self-appointed red pen running over the writings of everyone who disagrees with you, you miss out the question mark at the end of your sentence to Bob: ‘Why do you feel the need to be subversive, misuse language and imply your own authority.’ and the apostrophe after Dawkins in ‘Dawkins field of highly successful study.’
You’re so generous in dishing it out to all comers, on all fronts, Veronique. But can you take it?
Clearly not, as you refute my remarks not with cogent rebuttals, but with tangential arguments devoid of logical reasoning; I used to know a rabid Pentecostal who was a past master at that. Ooooh! – perhaps you evolved from him….
Finally (because there’s nothing to be gained from continuing to converse with such a ‘loose cannon’ thinker – you’re not increasing my understanding of your viewpoint, which is what I was after) ridicule is NOT a good substitute for ‘niceness’. It’s just a volley of cheap shots, and a good thing they’re cheap, too, because they’re entirely wasted.
Hahahaha. Got you going didn’t it, little Miss Politenik?
Oh ye great defender of people less able to sling to shot across the bows.
I told you, I don’t give a damn my dear. I am sick and tired of PC craperoo; I am sick and tired of pandering and playing the apologetic (as you have done throughout this comment thread) by pretending to be a ‘nice’ commenter.
I told you, Cherry, but you think you are above it all. Well – just look at your subsequent comments. Welcome to the real on-line world (hahaha) honey. And don’t tell me not to call you honey – too late, I have posted already.
Now if you would care to read a review of the More4 programme called Faith Schools Menace (with the gratuitous query mark) why not take a look at Paul Whitelaw’s in the Scotsman and definitely Tom Sutcliffe’s in the Independent.
I do wish you would learn to spell properly though. You seem to know so much about so much, I would have thought that spelling badly would have been anathema to you. Ah well.
However, it is the 21st century; I would cleave to common usage these days wouldn’t you? You may enjoy Julian Baggini’s latest book about etymology and changing usage. Then again, maybe not. It may challenge your pre-conceived stance(s).
” a volley of cheap shots, and a good thing they’re cheap, too, because they’re entirely wasted.”
On you maybe – my family and friends love typing cheap shots – they are guaranteed to get the wowzers going and at a faster rate than any other method. They are also entertaining for all of us. But you’re right – they are, after all, cheap shots for cheap targets.
BTW, I looked up ‘Educating Rita’ on IMDB. Never seen it, but I have to ask myself who is the snob here? I am just an ordinary person who is intelligent, educated and different from you. I don’t try to advertise myself as a defender of people’s views when I have no idea what such people represent. I don’t know them, Cherry-pie so I don’t defend them. But I certainly have strong opinions, most of which can be evidenced. Something wrong with that is there?
You think you insult me with comments like:
“I used to know a rabid Pentecostal who was a past master at that. Ooooh! – perhaps you evolved from him….”
Excuse me Madam, your silliness is showing!! You diminish yourself and show your ineptitude. You also expose your inability to grasp anything about evolution even though 151 years have passed since that amazingly thoughtful and travelled, educated and erudite man called Darwin wrote magnificently for his scientific colleagues about the obvious origin of mankind and all other species.
This piddling little exchange, dear Cherry, is called a cat-fight.
I hereby desist from lowering myself further (and I love cats!).
Here’s a good link to a decent opinion:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/last-nights-tv-faith-schools-menacemore-4-2056104.html
and then there’s this one:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/features/TV-review-Faith-Schools-Menace.6482593.jp
Excellent reading. I hope you watched Dawkins’ doco – it was definitely worth it. I don’t know how appreciative you would have been. My household endorsed it unreservedly and were critical to boot! Gosh! Who would have thought that possible? Maybe intellectual honesty gave it all a shove.
I think children are naturally rebellions, whatever the parents teach them, expose to them or tell them to do they will do the opposite! It is in our gens to do our own thing, so Dorkin is talking a load of rubbish if he thinks kids are not inquisitive just because they are taught a religion, did he forget that Darwin was a strong christian while he investigated his evolutionally research and before he was angry with god after his daughter died? However I do agree that all schools should teach all kinds of religion, even faith school should turn into normal schools and teach different kinds of religion and not just their own, single religions school should change, and should not be funded anymore unless they change to teach all kinds of religion like normal schools that teach all religion. Does he want us to turn barbaric without spiritual inquiries? How impoverished we would be without religion. It is the abuse of religion that gives rise to war not religion itself.
Dawkins and his programme makers never allow anyone with any deep knowledge and experience of faith schools to question his view. It is all staged in favour of secularist anti-faith hysterics. He can hand-pick his audience, and clearly if anything said seriously contradicts his singularist view can be edited out.
The facts are that in general faith schools have higher achievements than non faith schools and their social and socialising environment is far batter than non-faith schools.
Dawkins acts as if he were the all knowing all seeing High Priest of Science whose Patron Saint is Charles Darwin – whose apotheosis his continues to pursue.
When I was in my Grammar School, in the 1950s the message from my science teachers was that Science was going to save the world. It hasn’t – it still facilitates the design, manufacture and production of the most horrific weapons and led us all in 1962 to the brink of a nuclear war.
Most scientists work in the industrial-military complex and are responsible for the production of weapons that are killing/mutilating thousands of people every year, as well as doing incalculable damage to the environment.
When has Dawkins ever done anything for those suffering as a result of war, or from economic impoverishment, or from a debilating illness? When has he ever done anything in practical terms to help anyone but himself?
The person who designs the bullet or the gun, is as equally culpable of the death of the innocent as the person who fires the weapon. What has happened to the social and moral conscience of the scientist? It has been eroded.
How can anyone be accountable for his or her actions if there is no-one ultimately to whom one must be accountable?
To whom is Dawkins accountable for his misdemeanours – no one but himself – he is his own Messiah and his own God –
I don’t think I could be as arrogant as that.
In an ideal world every kind of person should be admitted equally to every kind of school – but that is currently practically impossible. I did not go to a faith school but many I know did and most have had a positive experience.
One of my friends who taught in a nominally Catholic school told me that the majority of students there were Muslim. The population of the catchment area had changed, and so had the faith of the pupils, but staff and pupils had a ver positive experience of the school.
If the argument is that one is against introducing children to a particular faith when they are children, then why introduce them to a given language or a given culture – the ultimate result of Dawkin’s view is a monoculture and a mono language – which seems to me to as close to Fascism as one would never wish to get.
Was Dawkins hatched out at the age of 45 with a totally unbiassed mind? Able to see all and know all in non limited way? I doubt that would be true even for this egghead!
He himself is a product of the limitations of a given culture with all its inclusions and exclusions. He ought to listen and talk less and try to respect other people who differ from himself.
Patience and tolerance seem to be the virtues he lacks most – but then I forgot he is not into the virtuous life – as he can never sin – for to sin there must be a God – unless he admits to sinning against himself – so plainly he can only be an amoral, not a moral person, as, ipso facto, are all atheists.
Less study of science and more of morals and ethics might make him see himself as most of us, do, as a finite fallible human being.
I cannot understand why there should be any incompatibility between a view that sees science as a means of explaining how things work and faith that informs us that some intelligent being by some not yet fully understood designed process – initiated the process of the creation of the universe, and as part of that, a process of evolution via which diverse forms of animal life came to exist.
Scientist clearly claim experience of what may be inadequately termed ‘real events’ when in point of fact what humans really experience is not reality but its phenomenology – the interpretation of sensations (via perceptual and cognitive processes – to build an internalised mental model – which enables to make partial sense of our sensory interactions with the physical environment.
Person of faith claim by means as yet less well understood, to have contact with and experience of, a transcendent being, who is responsible for bringing our universe into being, and through various physical processes ‘giving’ us life. Such experience is considered to be largely intuitive. We may not as Bergson argues, comprehend God, but we may, apprehend God.
In what ways, for example, can science, from its observation of the physical universe alone, advise us as to what is morally right or wrong? Knowledge only provides facts – that this is so and so – not why it is moral to be so and so –
Our ethics and our morality are not part of the external world, but belong to our inner world of consciousness. The early Greek philosophers tried to interpret and make sense of our mental activities in relation to external sensory experiences. Plato understood that underlying everything there were what he termed, ideal forms. Pythagoras considered everything to be related to number.
Did, for example, the development of the concept of negative numbers, and later even more challenging in terms of the ‘real’ physical environment, the imaginary numbers, come from the reality of the sensory experience or from the inner intuitive deepest level of consciousness?
Is it, Je pense donc je suis? or, Je suis donc je pense? Both have an interesting perspective.
I can understand scientists not wanting ‘bad science’ to be taught by over-zealous prosleytisers, but equally, persons of faith do not want their ethical principles and moral experiences to be so deprecatingly rubbished by
over-zealous atheists, as if these had no meaning and value whatsoever.
Perhaps Dawkins et alia, should heed Shakespeare, ‘methinks she protests too much.’
To the persons of faith, God is responsible for the creation of our universe but that does not mean that they should not seek the help of science in trying to understand by what means and agencies God utilized for its creation.
I believe I saw an advert recently about a talk by Stephen Hawkinge about the design of the universe, presumably, without the name of a designer. Could one imagine that the Dyson vacuum cleaner could come into existence without some intelligent process of transformation of raw materials into this machine?
Why can’t scientists explore the possibility that there is a creative intelligence underlying the development of the universe and seek to explore the nature of this being? What precludes this from being a true scientific quest, except a very deep prejudice?
Mutual respect and collegial conversation between scientists and theists – should be possible in a truly intellectual social and educational environment.
It is perfectly legitimate for a scientist to seek for science to be taught scientifically in the school environment. That does not give any scientist the right to deny one of the basic freedoms in a liberal democracy, namely, freedom of association.
If people of a given persuasion wish to aggregate together for a common purpose then this is totally compatible with the understanding of freedom in a free society.
Freedom of association was something fought for in very hard circumstances by Chartists and Trade Unionists, and the gains made earlier in the 20th Century by trade unionist have been eroded by Thatcher, Blair and Brown.
Scientist have absolutely no right in a free society to prevent persons of any religion from forming free associations. Such associations may be schools or clubs or whatever.
It is incumbent upon persons responsible for these associations to teach the national curriculum according to the educational needs of the nation.
I am concerned that the formation of schools not so much by persons of a given religious faith – the teaching of the praxis of which is a private matter to be outside the curriculum – but by groups of parents of a given political persuasion – who will not teach the nationally agreed curriculum but one of their own devising.
It is however the mark of the more intellectually and culturally developed to be able to co-exist, be educated and work in a multi-cultural environment.
Truth in any discipline, as the great Greek and early Christian philosophers taught, benefits from dispute and debate.
Does not Dawkin’s et alia’s seeking to silence faith in faith schools provoke the reaction where certain persons of certain faiths seek to silence the scientist.
Can Dawkins keep an open mind – not if he seeks to shut out and shut up the people of faith.
Definition of faith
Unquestioning belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Definition of Science (Method)
A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based on making refutable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data.
Definition of a delusion
Fixed belief opposed to reality and not logically sound.
Definition of a Religion
A large group of people with the same delusion.
Since time immemorial different religious /ethnic groups and nations have been slaughtering one another in the name of their irrefutable beliefs (faith).
FACT gay animals exist.
You can keep you divisive, bigoted, religions and shove them were the sun don’t shine.
But most of all leave the kids alone; give them facts not dogmatic fantasies.
If you were abused as a child then there is a very good (scientifically provable (mathematical) fact) chance that you will become an abuser yourself.
Stop indoctrinating the innocent kids.
Ban religious schools.
Brian –
Definition of prejudice:
‘A baseless unfavorable opinion esp. of a hostile nature, a feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason, toward an individual or members of a racial, religious, or national group. Common features of prejudice include unreasonable negative feelings, opinions, or attitudes, stereotyped beliefs, and a tendency to discriminate against members of the group.’
I find it quite pathetic the bickering going off between people commenting here. I am not religious, why must I deem myself to be ‘atheist’. I know not to steal from people, not to murder, etc. So why am I amoral? We could argue forever about morality existing in people with or without faith. To be told I am amoral because I do not believe is quite a leap of faith, pardon the pun. Do not make assumptions about me because I do not believe. You know nothing about me. If we took away religion, there would still be bad people in this world. If everybody followed the same religion, no matter which one, there would still be bad people in this world. I guess my point is, live your own life, if in your opinion somebody is living in ignorant bliss, then let them live. Do not let people dictate your life, while at the same time do not dictate other peoples lives. Do not knock on my door trying to teach me the ways of how you see the world and I will not knock on your door to tell you how I see the world. I see the world as a place where I should be free to do what I want as long as I am not adversely effecting somebody elses life. What I’m trying to say is, leave me alone and I will leave you alone, do not and you’ll get a right earful. I await some witty retort from somebody concerning this comment.
Cherry-
“Definition of prejudice:
‘A baseless unfavorable opinion esp. of a hostile nature, a feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason, toward an individual or members of a racial, religious, or national group. Common features of prejudice include unreasonable negative feelings, opinions, or attitudes, stereotyped beliefs, and a tendency to discriminate against members of the group.’”
Cherry- What are you on ???
1. My opinion is based on known FACTS, not widely held delusions (sorry Beliefs) .
2. If I’m hostile then its hostility to child-abuse (by indoctrination)or Priest.
3. “without knowledge, thought, or reason” WHAT ???? My opinion is ALL based on KNOWLEDGE of what goes on in faith (indoctrination) schools, THOUGHT as opposed to thoughtless faith, REASON a concept alien to faith which do’s not rely it.
So is it unreasonable to object to innocent minds being indoctrinated with religious PREJUDICE AKA Northern Ireland / Sunni V Shea Muslims / Greek V Turks etc etc etc.
But if your HAPPY CLAPPING, do not let me stop you. Just leave the kids alone! YES teach morals, they do not have to be couched in religious gobbledegook. Above all else teach the kids FACTS ie SCIENCE not sciences-less fiction stories.
Brian, I’m not a happy-clapper. Not even an UNhappy clapper. Not ‘on’ anything at all. Just someone who recognises reasoned argument when I see it – and in your comments I don’t see it. What I do see is a list of opinions with a near-hysterical overtone of exactly the same type as you attribute to believers.
I’ve been around long enough, and closely enough involved with science, to have seen it do more 180-degree about-turns than you could shake a stick at.
What I distrust is certainty so overwhelming that you feel all you need to do is pour scorn on the opposing side of the argument. Abuse is not an effective or convincing form of debate.
Come back when you can argue like a person of intelligence. Your use of capitals alone makes your statements read like those of a raving fanatic.
Glenn – ‘I am not religious, why must I deem myself to be ‘atheist’. I know not to steal from people, not to murder, etc. So why am I amoral’
An absence of religious belief does not make you an atheist, but an agnostic. That lack of religious belief doesn’t make you immoral or amoral, and any person who says so (whether they’re religious or not) simply doesn’t understand the meaning of the words. However, I haven’t read anything on this thread that actually says that…
Of course you’re right: morality exists outside of faith, and it’s patant nonsense to say otherwise. It is fact, though (or FACT, if you’re Brian) that throughout history faith has been means of introducing many people to moral understanding, especially in the ages when education was the exception rather than the rule.
Not all science is evil; not all faith is stupidity. If we could just admit that, we might get somewhere, and it would save a whole lot of wasted energy.
Cherry-
You really are a hopeless case.
You say you are “someone who recognises reasoned argument when I see it”
I take it you are blind then.
Science is based on facts (or should I say FACTS {better not though as that would be petty bickering}), facts that are subject to revision in the light of new information. Information that now and again results in a 180 degree about-turn.
Faith is based on what you are told to believe (usually starting when you are a very (VERY VERY {sorry}) impressionable child.
Religious gobbledegook can not be questioned let alone do a 180.
In the more rabid (and Misogynistic) religions, to question your programming is to invite being killed.
Oh, boy, that’s rich! You’re saying I’M a hopeless case??? Facts that are subject to revision in the light of new information, resulting in 180 degree about turns, cannot therefore have been facts, Brian! D’uh!
Where I come from, the way I think is called having an open mind.
..but not – unlike some – so open that the only thing in there is tumbleweed blowing about in the wailing wind.
Coo-eee…. Brian?
Hamlet, act III, scene 4, lines 206/7:
“For ’tis sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard …”
Cherry
You are away with the fairy’s…You really are.
That would be ‘fairies’, would it, Brian?
If your argument has run so thin that you’re reduced to rather pathetic insult, it’s a dead giveaway that your ‘facts’ aren’t strong enough.
I rest my case
At the moment I am pondering in silence – my mind is seeking silence so for the moment I have nothing to say.
“He(Dawkins) presents the evidence and invites us to draw our own conclusions.”
My reaction: rubbish!
Dawkins is as prejudiced as anyone. His so-called “evidence” was not evidence at all. He kept saying “science has shown this … science has shown that”. What rot! The only timt he was seriously challanged in the program he said “We’d better stop there”. He is an academic bully!
Even the incident with Taggart, the preacher, was open to question. Dawkins was the one that looked angry. What did he say behind the scenes I wonder … to make Taggart eject him? You were not given Taggart’s version of the ejection … hardly impartial reporting!
Science = the accumualtion & utilization of knowledge.
Dawkins has closed his mind to any science of the “hereafter” … hardly an attitude of someone who seeks the truth!