Religion, what's the point?

[oneniltothearsenal]

Would you say the same about Hitchens' claims that the tooth fairy doesn't exist? Or goblins? I think this is where the disconnect is. I consider myself an atheist, but obviously, I can't 100% for certain know that God doesn't exist, because that's literally impossible. But I'm about as sure of it as I am that the other two I mentioned don't exist. I've seen no more proof for any of them than the other. That's not faith, IMO.

I agree about the Fermi Paradox. It's interesting as hell, but it's just guesswork.

No, because the claims are not equivalent. Something like the tooth fairy is a very specific metaphysical claim. The concept of a potential "god" has many different variations that can't all be collapsed into a single claim and all considered equivalent.

For instance, just the Dawkins quote earlier about a potential highly advanced form of life that created humans would fall under a variation of "god" and be very different than the specific Christian version that claims the universe is 6000 years old, etc.

For me, I think there are absolutely more advanced forms of intelligence in the universe (how advanced is variable), and I find that view more rational than the form of scientific reductionism that relies on the faith of our current level of scientific understanding.

 

[neverdie]

I don't want to turn the thread in to specific religious individuals. The cutoff point, is the one I've written; a cleric or whatever the feck he is seen today that killed free thought in the then Islam tradition (it was Islam during their great scientific progress, Mahomed was not the one that killed them as free thinkers, the ones after did; Mohamed probably wanted good things for the people along with delusions of matching Alexander the Great, also many women including children).

The same things happened in Europe too. There is a reason why we call the church dominated era as the "dark ages". Free thought was heresy, many people died and it took a long and very hard fought "war" for science to break free from the persecution of religion. We can complain all we want about Islam but Christianity was the one that gave us the "moral" values of the inquisition. If that is too far apart, then "we" have more. Hate the gays, subjugate women because they are inferior, suppress science if it contradicts dogma; these are all Christian "morals" propagated today.

My look down on religion is global.

I'm not sure on the specific date or range you mean for the clerical class and the opposition to freedom of thought but I'm talking about this tradition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age. The end-date given is the Mongol advance and invasion.

The dark age is largely misunderstood i think. most of the free thinkers of that period were religious scholars and monks. from Augustine to Aquinas. it was the Viking advance subsequent to the fall of Rome, in the centuries after, that most cite as the reason for the "dark ages". not that the church wasn't repressive. it was.

i mean the Islamic Golden Age occurs throughout a large part of the "dark ages". most modern scholars rightly point out that the term is controversial at best.

 

[Carolina Red]

I went to a Catholic school. You say prayers a few times a day. The teacher taught us about Catholicism and had us learn prayers by rote. The priest would come in at various times of the year (Lent, Easter, Advent etc) and talked us about Jesus and told us how to behave and how to be good christians and follow the word God. We were told about the mysteries of Faith. I didn't really believe most of it but, as I said in a previous post, I did start to go along with it for a while when I was somewhere around 11 and making my confirmation. It was presented as fact and I certainly wasn't taught to view the gospels with a critical eye. This started when I was four but for my classmates they had been attending mass each week pretty much since they were born. The word may have acquired a negative connatation and Religions tend not to use it anymore but it is indoctrination. I can't think of any other word to describe it.

You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about and are making all of this up.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

No, because the claims are not equivalent. Something like the tooth fairy is a very specific metaphysical claim. The concept of a potential "god" has many different variations that can't all be collapsed into a single claim and all considered equivalent.

For instance, just the Dawkins quote earlier about a potential highly advanced form of life that created humans would fall under a variation of "god" and be very different than the specific Christian version that claims the universe is 6000 years old, etc.

For me, I think there are absolutely more advanced forms of intelligence in the universe (how advanced is variable), and I find that view more rational than the form of scientific reductionism that relies on the faith of our current level of scientific understanding.

I don't think science refutes or precludes the claim of more advanced intelligences existing does it?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I don't think science refutes or precludes the claim of more advanced intelligences existing does it?

"Science" doesn't of course. But I have encountered and debated plenty of people that claim to represent "science" over the years (dating back to usenet in the 90s) that do assert such things usually using some variation of the Fermi paradox or reliance on the belief that our current level of science is sufficient to make such claims. (admittedly this might be more suited to the astronomy thread).

 

[Kinsella]

That's because there's a distinction being made, specifically that culture and tradition don't require definitive statements about that which is true about the nature of reality to be made.

It's very difficult to cleanly separate religion and faith from culture though, particularly when it has provided the bedrock for cultures around the world for millennia now. Culture is like the air we breathe - it's just there, and it influences the identity of people (for good & bad) wherever they may be.

People don't exist in the abstract. They never have and never will.

Clearly you don't agree, but the claim that children being taught that a religion's perspective is a fact, especially at an age where the mind is forming and highly susceptible to instruction from adults is a form of indoctrination. That doesn't seem to be an unreasonable description.

Ok but let's examine the follow on from that. If this indoctrination is a bad thing (and it seems to me that indoctrination is intrinsically bad), what do you propose to replace it with and who decides? If we were to remove any kind of religious influence from education for example...well firstly that removes parental choice, and creates a situation where third parties take it upon themselves to decide what's best for other people's children.

 

[nimic]

No, because the claims are not equivalent. Something like the tooth fairy is a very specific metaphysical claim. The concept of a potential "god" has many different variations that can't all be collapsed into a single claim and all considered equivalent.

For instance, just the Dawkins quote earlier about a potential highly advanced form of life that created humans would fall under a variation of "god" and be very different than the specific Christian version that claims the universe is 6000 years old, etc.

For me, I think there are absolutely more advanced forms of intelligence in the universe (how advanced is variable), and I find that view more rational than the form of scientific reductionism that relies on the faith of our current level of scientific understanding.

Maybe, but when most people talk about their beliefs or lack of beliefs around God, they are talking about specific gods, from more or less organized religion. I don't think most people are debating Deism, and I certainly don't think most people have in mind the potentially "god like" powers of a Type 3 civilization.

 

[Carolina Red]

We can agree on that. It's very stupid.

Generally I see this, indoctrination, used a lot for religion but not other fields.

I always found education, only using that as I know you're in education, as more of an indoctrinating tool than religion and I didn't attend religious schools.

There’s several of things I’d use the term indoctrination for…. But this thread is about religion, so that’s what I’m talking about.

And then we can ridicule part of who they are under free speech

Exactly. I’m glad you’ve finally figured that part out.

 

[Withnail]

You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about and are making all of this up.

That's the feeling I'm getting

It's very difficult to cleanly separate religion and faith from culture though, particularly when it has provided the bedrock for cultures around the world for millennia now. Culture is like the air we breathe - it's just there, and it influences the identity of people (for good & bad) wherever they may be.

People don't exist in the abstract. They never have and never will.



Ok but let's examine the follow on from that. If this indoctrination is a bad thing (and it seems to me that indoctrination is intrinsically bad), what do you propose to replace it with and who decides? If we were to remove any kind of religious influence from education for example...well firstly that removes parental choice, and creates a situation where third parties know what's best for other people's children.

Parents are free to teach their kids whatever they want outside of school. However, schools should be completely secular. The situation in Ireland where people are getting their kids baptised purely to get them into the local school is ridiculous. Removing religious influence from education is in fact the absence of deciding things for others. I'm not sure what you meant there at all.

 

[Kinsella]

That's interesting. Were you a Christian who believed in God at the time?

I honestly don't remember ever really thinking about it. The only time you really do as a younger person is when a family member or someone close to you passes away or is suffering from a serious illness.

My mother and father grew up 1950s and 60s NI so their experience would've been different to mine. Ireland, North and South, had changed a lot in that time period. But I've asked them many times about what it was like when they were growing up vis-à-vis the church and religion, and they didn't report any real negativity about it. My father related his anger about his mother being 'churched' after giving birth, but apart from that I honestly can't think of anything else (I'll ask them again at the weekend though). Their reaction to what came out about the Magdalene laundries and so on is another story though. And whilst I would describe both as having a strong faith, there was never any deference or kowtowing shown to the church itself. My father in particular has always had little or no time for institutional power.

If so, it was probably just normal to you as it was to everyone else in my class. As an atheist whose parent's didn't believe in God and had never taken me to Church apart from Weddings, Funerals and Christenings, I saw it very differently.

Ahh...well it would've been a very different experience for you indeed then.

 

[jackal&hyde]

I'm not sure on the specific date or range you mean for the clerical class and the opposition to freedom of thought but I'm talking about this tradition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age. The end-date given is the Mongol advance and invasion.

The dark age is largely misunderstood i think. most of the free thinkers of that period were religious scholars and monks. from Augustine to Aquinas. it was the Viking advance subsequent to the fall of Rome, in the centuries after, that most cite as the reason for the "dark ages". not that the church wasn't repressive. it was.

i mean the Islamic Golden Age occurs throughout a large part of the "dark ages". most modern scholars rightly point out that the term is controversial at best.

Do you want me to literally tell you the name of the person that redefined what a "good muslim is"? It is know to all muslims for the wrong reasons and to all mathematicians for the correct ones. I care not for this type of debate. We can talk in private if the super popular and kwon cretin that took hundreds and now billions of people back eludes you.

The dark ages were not called dark at the time; obviously people at the time thought were doing the right thing, killing women, killing what we now call scientists. The church had a monopoly on learning, most people were illiterates peasants. The dark age is not misunderstood at all, it just paints the picture of what the world looks like if jessus believing people have absolute power.

What is amazing is that even through all of that stupidity and threats, there were people willing to risk it all to break canon. People that risk their literal life, many of them being killed.

 

[JPRouve]

Do you want me to literally tell you the name of the person that redefined what a "good muslim is"? It is know to all muslims for the wrong reasons and to all mathematicians for the correct ones. I care not for this type of debate. We can talk in private if the super popular and kwon cretin that took hundreds and now billions of people back eludes you.

The dark ages were not called dark at the time; obviously people at the time thought were doing the right thing, killing women, killing what we now call scientists. The church had a monopoly on learning, most people were illiterates peasants. The dark age is not misunderstood at all, it just paints the picture of what the world looks like if jessus believing people have absolute power.

What is amazing is that even through all of that stupidity and threats, there were people willing to risk it all to break canon. People that risk their literal life, many of them being killed.

Is it Al khwarizmi?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Maybe, but when most people talk about their beliefs or lack of beliefs around God, they are talking about specific gods, from more or less organized religion. I don't think most people are debating Deism, and I certainly don't think most people have in mind the potentially "god like" powers of a Type 3 civilization.

That's probably true in most cases.

Seeing that Dawkins quote again just got me thinking about a lot of interesting and, for me, fascinating conversations I've had over the years. I won't keep going down this tangent here but I don't think earth-centric abiogenesis is more probable than different versions of panspermia. I think the age, expanding nature of the universe, and other findings offer up quite a lot of interesting scenarios that are at least as probable (if not much more so) as the stale and hubric view that humans are the most advanced form of life in the universe.

 

[neverdie]

Do you want me to literally tell you the name of the person that redefined what a "good muslim is"? It is know to all muslims for the wrong reasons and to all mathematicians for the correct ones. I care not for this type of debate. We can talk in private if the super popular and kwon cretin that took hundreds and now billions of people back eludes you.

The dark ages were not called dark at the time; obviously people at the time thought were doing the right thing, killing women, killing what we now call scientists. The church had a monopoly on learning, most people were illiterates peasants. The dark age is not misunderstood at all, it just paints the picture of what the world looks like if jessus believing people have absolute power.

What is amazing is that even through all of that stupidity and threats, there were people willing to risk it all to break canon. People that risk their literal life, many of them being killed.

I did want to know the name yeah. I'm not muslim. the problem with the "dark age" is that by historical standards it wasn't really any darker than anything that went before or much that came after. it's a nonsensical concept.

Is it Al khwarizmi?

puts him right in the centre of the Islamic Golden Age. would be interested to read more.

 

[shamans]

Exactly. I’m glad you’ve finally figured that part out.

Now that I have figured out bullying is free speech I am quite sad. Oh well.

 

[Kinsella]

Parents are free to teach their kids whatever they want outside of school. However, schools should be completely secular.

Which would be imposing your view on others.

In any case if state secular schools delivered superior academic performance, or least results on a par with non-secular schools, then I doubt it would be much of an issue.

The situation in Ireland where people are getting their kids baptised purely to get them into the local school is ridiculous.

It does make me laugh though...these people people feigning faith to get their kid into a good school.

But it relates to a central truism in all debates around education, which is that parents (or at least most parents) don't actually care about education - what they actually care about is their children's education.

 

[jackal&hyde]

I did want to know the name yeah. I'm not muslim. the problem with the "dark age" is that by historical standards it wasn't really any darker than anything that went before or much that came after. it's a nonsensical concept.


puts him right in the centre of the Islamic Golden Age. would be interested to read more.

OK. That from a historical perspective is as close to the Moon being made of Riva.

Before the dark ages, the Roman Empire made advances that were not touched until the industrial age. The romans made highways and aqueducts while the Christian dominated Europe made...bigger temples, and hate for the jews and war.

The biggest problem of Europe is that magic jessus did not tell his flock that slavery is bad. It would have saved many millions of Africans for not going to heal in America.

 

[Withnail]

Which would be imposing your view on others.

In any case if state secular schools delivered superior academic performance, or least results on a par with non-secular schools, then I doubt it would be much of an issue.

No it wouldn't be imposing anything. Schools like places of work and governments should be secular so that all people from all walks of life can attend, integrate and learn together. It's a very bad idea to have the Catholics all going to the Catholic school, Muslims to the Muslim one etc. Have you actually thought any of this through?

It does make me laugh though...these people people feigning faith to get their kid into a good school.

But it relates to a central truism in all debates around education, which is that parents (or at least most parents) don't actually care about education - what they actually care about is their children's education.

It's not about getting them into a good school. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Practically every school in the country has a religious ethos. There is a dearth of secular schools in Ireland. More are being built but there's nowhere near enough and demand in some areas is high that the Catholic ones will only accept baptised kids hence the reason why some are doing it.

Why should atheists or people of a monitory religion have to attend a school with the ethos of one of the mainstream Religions just because there are no other options?

 

[nimic]

OK. That from a historical perspective is as close to the Moon being made of Riva.

Before the dark ages, the Roman Empire made advances that were not touched until the industrial age. The romans made highways and aqueducts while the Christian dominated Europe made...bigger temples, and hate for the jews and war.

From a historical perspective, he's absolutely correct. Historians do not accept the dark ages as some non-period in European history. Particularly since a lot of the things that the Roman Empire was doing continued to be done after it the West had fallen (never mind the fact that the East didn't fall for another thousand years). And the last 150 years of the Roman Empire were Christian dominated too. For that matter, you can ask the Jews how they felt about the Romans during the pagan era. As for bigger temples, the pagan Romans were the champions of temples. So many gods, and so many temples. The champions of war too, come to think of it.

I'm not saying the Roman Empire wasn't cool as shit, but let's get some perspective here.

 

[neverdie]

The biggest problem of Europe is that magic jessus did not tell his flock that slavery is bad. It would have saved many millions of Africans for not going to heal in America.

But slavery in Jesus' time was based on the Roman system of slavery and debt.

will go off topic for no reason as we don't disagree on religion just on the idea of a dark age which I don't think holds up to modern scrutiny.

 

[jackal&hyde]

From a historical perspective, he's absolutely correct. Historians do not accept the dark ages as some non-period in European history. Particularly since a lot of the things that the Roman Empire was doing continued to be done after it the West had fallen (never mind the fact that the East didn't fall for another thousand years). And the last 150 years of the Roman Empire were Christian dominated too. For that matter, you can ask the Jews how they felt about the Romans during the pagan era. As for bigger temples, the pagan Romans were the champions of temples. So many gods, and so many temples. The champions of war too, come to think of it.

I'm not saying the Roman Empire wasn't cool as shit, but let's get some perspective here.

No offence but who ever said that the dark ages are a non period?(the very term is a red herring imo; combat something that was not there to combat in the first place) It is a very important period, of non-progress. That the faults of the Romans were kept on, is but a symptom of society stagnating and regressing.

The jews you can ask even today how they feel in Christion dominated areas. Antisemitism is having it's biggest home in Christianity dominated areas. This is not a secret.

 

[Kinsella]

No it wouldn't be imposing anything. Schools like places of work and governments should be secular so that all people from all walks of life can attend, integrate and learn together. It's a very bad idea to have the Catholics all going to the Catholic school, Muslims to the Muslim one etc. Have you actually thought any of this through?

It would be imposing something. It's imposing your view of how the world should be on others.

Just to be clear, my view is that if there's sufficient demand for secular schools, or in the NI context - integrated schools, then the state should endeavour to provide it.

It's not about getting them into a good school. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Apologies. When you mentioned that I immediately thought of what goes on in England, and that's what I was referring to.

Practically every school in the country has a religious ethos. There is a dearth of secular schools in Ireland. More are being built but there's nowhere near enough and demand in some areas is high that the Catholic ones will only accept baptised kids hence the reason why some are doing it.

That's fair enough and I'll reiterate what I said above - if there's sufficient demand for it then the state should do everything it can to provide it.

I do predict that you'll still see the same differences in educational attainment between the sectors as seen elsewhere though.

Why should atheists or people of a monitory religion have to attend a school with the ethos of one of the mainstream Religions just because there are no other options?

These are kids who have been indoctrinated with atheism by their parents then?

 

[Carolina Red]

In any case if state secular schools delivered superior academic performance, or least results on a par with non-secular schools, then I doubt it would be much of an issue.

I looked up info about those faith schools. Spoiler alert: they don’t do better because of their faith based curriculum.
https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/faith-schools-pupil-performance-social-selection/

Key Findings
At Key Stage 2, we find that:

• 83 per cent of pupils in Church of England schools, and 85 per cent of pupils in Roman Catholic schools achieved level 4 in reading writing and mathematics, compared to 81 per cent in non-faith schools.

At Key Stage 4, we find that:

• 60.6 per cent of pupils in Church of England schools, and 63.2 per cent of pupils in Roman Catholic schools achieved five good GCSEs, including English and mathematics, compared to 57.4 per cent of pupils in non-faith secondary schools.

However, we also find faith schools have proportionately fewer pupils with challenging needs, compared to non-faith schools. We find that faith schools:

• educate a lower proportion of disadvantaged children (12.1 per cent at KS2 versus 18.0 per cent; 12.6 per cent at KS4 versus 14.1 per cent);
• educate a lower proportion of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) (16.8 per cent at KS2 versus 19.7 per cent; 14.4 per cent at KS4 versus 16.6 per cent); and
• enrol a larger proportion of high attaining pupils(28.4 per cent at KS2 versus 23.7 per cent; 27.4 per cent at KS4 versus 24.5 per cent).

Also, they aren’t actually performing that much better…

In addition to analysing how representative faith schools are compared to non-faith schools, we also look at how representative they are of their local communities through a ‘social selection’ index. A score of 1.0 means that a school draws in from its catchment exactly the same proportion of poor students who are represented in the catchment area. Using this, we find:

• Grammar schools are the most socially selective schools, with an average score of 0.2.
  • This means that on average the odds of a pupil in a grammar school being eligible for free school meals are one fifth of those for all children in their local area.
  • Of the 100 most socially selective schools in England, 65 of these are grammar schools (including some ‘faith grammars’).
• Secondary faith schools have, on average, a socially-selective score of 0.7.
  • This means that the odds of a pupil in a secondary faith school being eligible for free school meals are around two thirds of those for all children in their local area.
  • In the top 100 socially selective secondary schools, 30 of these are faith schools and 17 of these are non-academically selective faith schools – raising concerns about their admission arrangements.
• Primary faith schools have similarly socially selective intakes.

Because the intake of pupils in faith schools are not, on average, representative of their local areas or of the national picture, to impartially assess the impact of faith schools, the report analysed the performance data of faith schools controlling for deprivation, prior attainment and ethnicity. We find that:

• The difference in attainment between faith and non-faith schools at Key Stage 2 is largely eliminated after controlling for prior attainment and pupil characteristics – and is so small as to be educationally insignificant.
• At Key Stage 4, also adjusting for pupil characteristics, pupils in faith schools achieved the equivalent of around one-seventh of a grade higher in each of 8 GCSE subjects. This is a relatively small attainment gain.

 

[Moby]

These are kids who have been indoctrinated with atheism by their parents then?

Finally! Had been waiting for one of you lot to come back with either that or "Indoctrination with scientific beliefs" rebuttal.

 

[nimic]

No offence but who ever said that the dark ages are a non period?(the very term is a red herring imo; combat something that was not there to combat in the first place) It is a very important period, of non-progress. That the faults of the Romans were kept on, is but a symptom of society stagnating and regressing.

The jews you can ask even today how they feel in Christion dominated areas. Antisemitism is having it's biggest home in Christianity dominated areas. This is not a secret.

Modern historians very rarely use the term dark ages, and almost never (or possibly literally never) in the wholly negative way you're suggesting, of society stagnating and recessing, of non-progress. You don't have to go out and buy any history books to confirm this, just do a search in Google Scholar.

 

[Kinsella]

I looked up info about those faith schools. Spoiler alert: they don’t do better because of their faith based curriculum.
https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/faith-schools-pupil-performance-social-selection/

I never claimed that they do better because of their faith based curriculum (if by faith based curriculum you mean the particular religious teaching provided in the school) or as Moby put it - Kids are doing good in maths and science because they were told to believe that Jesus the son of god is real.

 

[Moby]

I never claimed that they do better because of their faith based curriculum (if by faith based curriculum you mean the particular religious teaching provided in the school) or as Moby put it - Kids are doing good in maths and science because they were told to believe that Jesus the son of god is real.

Honestly 90% of the time no one really knows what you lot are on about given most of it is filled with fantasies and imaginary stuff.

Religion pretty much puts any other drug out there to shame.

 

[Carolina Red]

I never claimed that they do better because of their faith based curriculum (if by faith based curriculum you mean the particular religious teaching provided in the school) or as Moby put it - Kids are doing good in maths and science because they were told to believe that Jesus the son of god is real.

Yes you did.

as I understand it schools in the US with a religious ethos of some kind tend to perform better than their secular state counterparts. And that’s something which is certainly the case on this side of the Atlantic, demonstrating perhaps that this kind of ‘indoctrination’ is very beneficial.

I'm not an expert on the education system in England but as far as I'm aware the majority of so-called faith schools in England are state funded, not private, and are routinely among the best performing state schools. And in NI, the catholic educational sector (that of the formerly downtrodden minority) outperforms every other sector, and the lower educational attainment that affects many young protestant kids is familiar discussion point in the media here. There are only 16 fee paying schools in NI too, all which cater primarily for the unionist/protestant community.

The proof is in the pudding, and the ethos of the school contributes to the pudding.

 

[Kinsella]

Yes you did.

No, I referred to the ethos of the school.

 

[Carolina Red]

No, I referred to the ethos of the school.

Walk it back all you want, but you said: “as I understand it schools in the US with a religious ethos of some kind tend to perform better than their secular state counterparts. And that’s something which is certainly the case on this side of the Atlantic, demonstrating perhaps that this kind of ‘indoctrination’ is very beneficial.”

The proof is: the schools perform marginally better because they’re selective in their admissions, not because of any benefit of their religious “indoctrination”/“ethos”/“curriculum”/whatever word we wanna out there out to make you feel better about saying it.

 

[flameinthesun]

Its pretty simple really, as the days go by science proves, creates and discovers more and more and the bible (or whatever religious text someone relies on) continues to prove absolutely nothing (still waiting for that repeatable religious test I can do that turns water into wine)

Still though, as long as what someone believes isn't forced on their neighbour and doesn't cause harm then believe in whatever you want to believe in.

 

[jackal&hyde]

Modern historians very rarely use the term dark ages, and almost never (or possibly literally never) in the wholly negative way you're suggesting, of society stagnating and recessing, of non-progress. You don't have to go out and buy any history books to confirm this, just do a search in Google Scholar.

Yes, they call it less and less that. The term meant the lack of evolution of humanity, between the advances of the Romans and close to the industrial revolution, the renascence (do you know why they call it that?). History like all facets of life is more and more infected by the virus of "don't upset" the believers.

The terms are not of importance anyway; what was done during those times is. Europe went through a dark time of thought dominated by the church. A few hundred years lost of study and free thought. As Europeans we like to feel superior to the islam state or other retards with similar thoughts; but we were right there juts a few hundred years ago.

 

[Withnail]

It would be imposing something. It's imposing your view of how the world should be on others.

Just to be clear, my view is that if there's sufficient demand for secular schools, or in the NI context - integrated schools, then the state should endeavour to provide it.



Apologies. When you mentioned that I immediately thought of what goes on in England, and that's what I was referring to.



That's fair enough and I'll reiterate what I said above - if there's sufficient demand for it then the state should do everything it can to provide it.

I do predict that you'll still see the same differences in educational attainment between the sectors as seen elsewhere though.



These are kids who have been indoctrinated with atheism by their parents then?

I did think you couldn't have been talking about Ireland with some of the responses so fair enough on that. The Church in the South anyway pretty much has a stranglehold on public schools and is seemingly reluctant to give them up. There are a few ear-marked to be switched over but there are issues with parents not being happy about it and protests etc so they can't just switch a school over to a secular one. Successive Irish govts haven't ensured enough houses were built or sorted out our healthcare system despite pumping billions into it and naturally education is also a bit of a shitshow in this regard. At the founding of the state, the Church was happy to provide schools and the govt was broke and quite religious so let them at it. Unfortunately, very few of the secular revolutionaries survived so we were left with de Valera. We're still dealing with the legacy of that in the South. All new schools are secular but it's not moving fast enough at the moment.

I'm still not sure about your contention that religious schools are somehow better or that the absence of something can mean you're pushing something on others. Are there some studies you're basing your opinion, about the quality of education, on?

My belief is that education should be free and available to all so by that token all public schools should be secular and inclusive. Private Schools can do what they like and if people want to pay to send their kids to one of a specific ethos then so be it. However, as I said the public ones should be secular, inclusive and integration is extremely important if we don't want to end up with a polarised society in twenty, thirty, or forty years' time. I know the last part is a joke and yeah it's possible that you can be indoctrinated into anything but my parents let me know what their thoughts were and told me some believed and some didn't and that there were all sorts of Religions and it was really up to me as to what I believed in, but it really wasn't discussed much. They were either atheist/agnostic at the time. To be honest I'm still not really sure of the exact nature of what they believe and it wouldn't have bothered them if I decided to go to Mass after learning about Christ in School or to become a Buddhist after being exposed to that.

 

[Moby]

No, I referred to the ethos of the school.

You have no idea how much you sound like the principal and management of the school I went to growing up. We have 4 religious books for 1 actually useful one. Spent like an hour a day praying. Had constant events where we'd be reciting religious verses. The fecking houses which were like categories that kids were divided into for events and such were all named after Hindu gods. And all the fecking time they couldn't stop going on about ethics, culture, moral goodness. We had a fecking subject called 'Culture Course'. And how my religious fanatic parents used to think I was being sent to a pure heaven like place where no bad thing could ever happen.

I lost 6 points out of 100 in science in the finals and all I could think of was how that wouldn't have happened if I wasn't asked to waste so much time going through that garbage instead of actually learning something useful. The worst part was how much pride and narcissism that lot running that school had, as if they were doing such a good thing for the society by rubbing centuries old rubbish onto kids at the age where they are supposed to learn and be educated. Zero doubt the same lot would go back home and conduct marital rape with their wives, discriminate people with darker skin, refuse to touch people with lower castes, blame rape victims for wearing the clothes of their choice, etc.

 

[Carolina Red]

Are there some studies you're basing your opinion, about the quality of education, on?

I actually just posted a study a little bit above this that shows the schools he mentioned in England only do marginally better and only because they are selective in who they let in.

 

[Kinsella]

Walk it back all you want, but you said: “as I understand it schools in the US with a religious ethos of some kind tend to perform better than their secular state counterparts. And that’s something which is certainly the case on this side of the Atlantic, demonstrating perhaps that this kind of ‘indoctrination’ is very beneficial.

Not walking back on anything.

That specific sentence was a little wind up just for you. I did use inverted commas around indoctrination and prefaced it with perhaps.

The proof is: the schools perform marginally better because they’re selective in their admissions, not because of any benefit of their religious “indoctrination”/“ethos”/“curriculum”/whatever word we wanna out there out to make you feel better about saying it.

I said the ethos of the school contributes to the difference. And the other factors obviously include the kind of family life that religion or faith encourages.

The differences in NI go some way in demonstrating the point, where the sector which services what was once the discriminated against side of the population outperforms the state sector which the once dominant population avails of.

 

[Withnail]

I actually just posted a study a little bit above this that shows the schools he mentioned in England only do marginally better and only because they are selective in who they let in.

Thanks those figures are hardly something to hang your hat on. Very Christian of them to take in a lower % of disadvantaged kids and those with special needs.

 

[Kinsella]

You have no idea how much you sound like the principal and management of the school I went to growing up. We have 4 religious books for 1 actually useful one. Spent like an hour a day praying. Had constant events where we'd be reciting religious verses. The fecking houses which were like categories that kids were divided into for events and such were all named after Hindu gods. And all the fecking time they couldn't stop going on about ethics, culture, moral goodness. We had a fecking subject called 'Culture Course'. And how my religious fanatic parents used to think I was being sent to a pure heaven like place where no bad thing could ever happen.

I lost 6 points out of 100 in science in the finals and all I could think of was how that wouldn't have happened if I wasn't asked to waste so much time going through that garbage instead of actually learning something useful. The worst part was how much pride and narcissism that lot running that school had, as if they were doing such a good thing for the society by rubbing centuries old rubbish onto kids at the age where they are supposed to learn and be educated. Zero doubt the same lot would go back home and conduct marital rape with their wives, discriminate people with darker skin, refuse to touch people with lower castes, blame rape victims for wearing the clothes of their choice, etc.

Well I’m genuinely sorry that you had that experience. Had I had it too, then I may have developed a similar outlook to yours.

 

[Carolina Red]

Not walking back on anything.

That specific sentence was a little wind up

Truly amazing.

 

[Carolina Red]

Thanks those figures are hardly something to hang your hat on. Very Christian of them to take in a lower % of disadvantaged kids and those with special needs.

Yes indeed. I’m sure Jesus would be very proud.