Religious education?

[Windwalker]

It was always clear.

You take offense that contemporary religious views are comparable to Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Viking, or other assorted "dirt-worshipping" Pagan-like religions…

Nope. I'm saying that our understanding of religion has evolved considerably since the early post-Enlightenment schools of though you are reflecting in your thoughts. You're arguing so... 300 years ago.

So, apparently my point isn't clear to you.

I’d accept that rather simplistic summary if it were not for one singular counter…

… it’s silly BS.

Spoken like a true modernist. No, these things are entire fields of study within postmoderist thought. Linguists, semiotics, structuralism, etc. It is a fact, in fact, that for instance what hits our eye and then registers to the brain occurs about a 10th of a second after the fact. So that alone says we are not intefacing directly with the world. Everything that enters into our brains is mediated through language symbols. And those symbols will actually block out data that does not fit those symbols. This has been demonstrated again and again, and their are many common examples of this you and I have been exposed to in these trick "illusion" things we've all seen. This is a but a tiny, miniscule example of huge amounts of information through the sciences we have into these areas.

and you call it BS.

The very fact that some of us as a species can look upon the Moon, and say “Let’s go there”, and then… well, go there. What we see is not a singular delusion or “belief”, but a shared “reality” of physicality, rules, and comparable experiences.

A very weak refutation, if this is what you meant it to be. The world is vastly more complex that simply physical objects. Yes, those are relatively stable objects in the environment. That there is a world out there we interact with is not in dispute. But how we understand the nature of what that is, the truth of it on deeply more complex levels that it's simple physical properties is. To take that as a starting point and project all knowledge to that type of thinking is laughably naive, but yet enormously appealing to those wanting to find security in clean simple understanding.

Argue away as you please that “reality” is nothing more than a singular perception devoid of anything more than a meditated realm of symbols and subjectively derived mental manifestations… but from my “reality”, whether or not I’m responding to an “actual person” on a online forum, and not just some invention that resides solely within my own mind…

Of course none of this reflects the actual depth of what I'm talking about. I would never say these things.

...I invite you to ask any parent whether or not their children are but “objects” that can not be interfaced in reality.

You can get back to me on that at your leisure...

Again, you're imagining someone else out there in the ether somewhere, not me. This does not reflect my thoughts, nor those who talk to these points. It's misunderstanding project in extremes that don't reflect the truth of it.

Well, if there is warfare, only one side is declaring it to be so…. and that side has lost every battle over time, and the outcome of the “war” is but a matter of patience and evolution of our species…

That's utterly naive historically.

 

[bandress]

I think that it should be. I am not so much religious but still I think about the religion, that the religion should not be treated as what kids are thinking. They are not much mature to do what they ant regarding religion. I am not talking about being much religious and make children as well but trying to say is they should have the basic knowledge about their religion.

 

[Breathe]

Should kids have mandatory religious education as part of the basic education (like math)? Should a kid who plant to be, say, a computer technician have to study religion? And I am thinking of religious education in the secular manner, i.e. teach about religion and not about which one is correct, and I am not talking about higher studies.

Personally I think that even if its not part of someones career, its still good because it combats ignorance and racism. Besides, you never know what happens in the future. If you end up with a hindu or buddhist boss it might be good to know a little about it and not just whatever prejudice you have picked up from random people.

I agree; I think the study of different religions should be mandatory in schools, even in religious ones. It will help combat ignorance (let's face it, many people know nothing about other religions; many also tend to have a simplistic view of what religions teach as a whole; a bit of education here won't hurt), racism, and will help get rid of many of the myths that survive and continue.

Regardless of whether or not one believe's in the validity of a religion or Divinity, the fact is that others will have religion, and knowing the general social and philosophical mores of different communities is beneficial. Even if someone doesn't believe in a religion, or has a different one, it's useful to know what people think: what (as a whole) different religions believe, the history behind their religion, and about etiquette when visiting people's homes or even places of worship.

Of course, it wouldn't be perfect, not all religions or religious denominations would be covered since there are so many, but answering some of the questions and dispelling some of the myths that persist would be good. We can't just leave it to the parents, since not everyone knows.

No longer would things like these be as common:

"Why does she wear that thing on her head?"
"Because she's oppressed and her husband makes her."
"Why does that man wear that thing on his head?"
"Because he thinks God will be angry at him/just because."
"Why's this guy wearing a skirt?"​

School isn't just about learning subjects, it's about learning how to interact with others and giving them the skills they need to survive in the world. In this modern, global era, having a clue about something that many people hold dear to them, and how you can not offend them, for example:

• By not hanging with a Hindu friend and then saying "I bought you a cheeseburger" (seen it)
• By not offering the Muslim guy a sausage sandwich with your left hand (seen it),
• By not trawling into the Buddhist temple with shoes on (seen it...)
• By not referring to a crucifix as "a cross with a bloke on it" (yes... this was also on a comedy programme I watched recently which reminded me of this, so I ended up coming back to add this one. )

... is going to be quite beneficial. If someone doesn't care about offending people because it's something in which they don't believe and so couldn't care, then they have serious social and respect issues. I don't think the young now will be able to afford to be ignorant of diverse opinions as they reach our ages as some can be now.

 

[bandress]

I think that it should be. I am not so much religious but still I think about the religion, that the religion should not be treated as what kids are thinking. They are not much mature to do what they ant regarding religion. I am not talking about being much religious and make children as well but trying to say is they should have the basic knowledge about their religion.

It suppose to be.

cert iv training & assessment

 

[s2a]

You did not follow when I said it is not allowed. In the space where I can type letters under the profile where is says "religion", I tried typing "I am all religions; I am none", and it would not allow that many characters. So no, it's not allowed. Perennial Philosophy fits, and does reflect a good aspect of how I think about religions. You may assume all sorts of things about me, but be assured they are coming from your imagination of who I am, and that can pretty much summarize most of your points that followed this.

Well, obviously whatever assumptions I may have, or you choose to project upon me as my own, could never hope to encompass or comprehend your... um, what is it again?

If you want a simple clean, easy definition of my thoughts, that's not going to happen for you. You're going to need to set aside your assumptions and hope for easy categories for me. You are familiar with what perennialism is, right? That's a good starting point to dialog with the actual me. Another understanding is that on a philosophical level what reflects my filter of reality is more a post-postmodern framework. Which if you are familiar with Modernity (which you certainly seem to speak mostly from), and postmodernity (which you seem confused about, as is typical of most Modernists), post-postmodernity, or what some for the time being call Integral, included and synthesizes modernity and postmodernity, keeping the baby in both, and dumping the bathwater in both. So bear in mind, what you see as being 'obtuse', is actually not at all. It fits quite elegantly, once that mode of thought comes to light.

Well at least you were clear as to my ignorance and loss of comprehension to your most earnest pleadings. Do continue...

And here you betray your view of postmodernity through the eyes of modernity. What I am saying about mental models of reality does not translate into Solipsism. Yet, that seems the knee-jerk reaction of those who assume their eyes, or even "repeatable, testable, blah blah," allows us to bypass that! All that does is continue to validate the myth of a pregiven world. It's like looking at one of those illusions on a piece of paper, that no matter how you try, your brain keeps translating it to look like an object you are familiar with, which you can then hand to a hundred other people to look at and they all say the same thing.

Well, thank you. So, a duck is really not a duck at all, or maybe it is. This is now becoming clearer...

You assume that science can free you of this, and that is reflective of a philosophy of science that is dying in science, but rising it popular ideologies. You reflect that ideology in the way you speak of science.

Science is a methodology. It is not a philosophy nor a religion. It is imperfect and always subject to revision predicated upon independently testable means and available evidence. You would serve yourself well enough neither to conflate nor equate "assumption" with "a pretty good guess". Theists "assume" what they believe is "true", as do many philosophers, as irony would have...

Experience. Then once they have experience, then they can dialog with others who have similar experience, compare, analyze, and come to some sort of 'model' or framework of understanding. These however should not be called "empirical facts", anymore really that any scientific theory should be called facts. They are models of reality, not reality itself. They are maps of the terrain, not the terrain itself. And maps need revisions. They are useful and valid tools, but not "Truth Almighty, Damn it!" "Facts" is one of those words that scream "Truth Almighty!", but it's far less "fact" than we would hope for, sorry to say.

I'll remain satisfied to accept things as can be best measured, quantified, or evidentially explained today. A scientific "fact" is merely in and of itself a quantifier of a conclusion that defies all known evidences or "testimonies" to the contrary.

And don't go a quote a math formula of 2+2=4, or talk about gravity and stepping off a cliff. You think all experience of reality is truly reducible to the atom?

That's hardly fair, as those are two completely differing propositions. My "experience" encompasses about 50 years of cognizant existence, some of which is quite useless due to youth (and of such you are utterly unqualified to speak upon).

IS reality as we experience it reducible to the atom?
Maybe?
Yes?
No?
Oh, you were saying...

By their blind spots and their dogmatic ideologies.

Whew, now that explains things...

You're certainty confirms my assessment, so far. There's a saying I used to use so many years ago when I was first growing past such certainties in my youth. "The more you know, the more you know you don't know". Again, "So certain are you?"

Thank you Yoda. If only I could begin to discern the distinctions between certainty and confidence, I might then come to appreciate the meaning of cow manure in it's most profound expressions of ingested experiences.

I'll share this with you. I'm 53 years old, and the core focus of the last 30 years of my life has been in the exploration of these areas, from religious fundamentalist dogma, to traditionalism, to agnosticism, to atheism, to modernity, to postmodernism, to post-postmodernism, to existentialism, to mysticism, to... and so forth. I moderated an online forum for former fundamentalist Christians, saw thousands, literally thousands of atheists working out their stuff there, including myself, etc. So, I am speaking not merely from some isolated thoughts about some world beyond my experience. I've been in the thick of it for many years, and when I say I see some, not all of course, but many do exactly what I am saying here, there is some substantial background and understanding supporting that. It's not just some glib comment on my part. I understand it as simply switching religions. It's not a radical overhaul in ones entire framework of thinking. That takes far, far more than simple "empical facts". That cry is really little more than "I have a new Bible!!".

Thank you for sharing. I'm 55 (verifiable through other posts of mine through the years here). Your insights belong in this forum, to be sure... but your chiding and philosophic gobbleydygook are hardly the stuff of revelation or grandiose exposition here.

A good friend of mine who graduated with me from Bible College, who likewise became an atheist some years later said to me. "I'm so glad I have the truth now!" I smiled at him and said, "I remember both of us saying that same thing when we were young Bible students aspiring to go into the ministry." He responded, "Yeah, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth!". It was the same mindset.

An overshare, but nice.

I'm not just saying this stuff to be hurtful or something like that, but to maybe jar loose that sort of mentality that I feel has a lot of us still in its grips. God knows, it still rears its head in me from time to time. Old mind habits. Personality types. Cultural programming. Etc. There is a reason why fundamentalism appeals in the country, as well as those like Richard Dawkins who is the other side of that black and white thinking in regards to understanding the nature of religious truth.

Most kind of you, but have no fear that I am now seriously unhinged or otherwise bumped off the back of a turnip truck upon my silly head. My ego is unbruised, I promise We all employ capacities of reason to suit our own capacities, and I am confident that your thinking suits yours just fine.

Who's talking about an organized religion here? I'm talking religious thinking, just like a spelled out above at my friend's expense here.

Your generosity is boundless...

Actually psychology and philosophy deal more with these. Or you could take the reductionist approach and tackle these as B.F. Skinner in the research Behaviorism (valid to a point, but insufficient beyond that point).

And yet more... we reductionists and narrow minded types thank you yet again.

You are correct in a sense, that religion historically was where all human knowledge was gathered under the umbrella of the Church and its mythic system. This is Kant's big three, the domains of science, morals, and art. Post-Enlightenment these splintered off into separate pursuits of knowledge, and religion has since found itself trying to find it's place again within these basic domains of human experience. Some try to make it appeal to science, others to philosophy, etc. They are missing the point as well.

It does have it's place, but I'm not going to get into that here yet.

Forgive me for being blunt, but I regarded Kant early on as a gasbag of self-interested, self-serving bloviation, and I'm doing my best to afford you a bit more than he in rapt consideration... but, you do make it a challenge

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

I would say both yes and no, and it depends how the classes are structured.

If it is done with the intent of promoting one religion over another, say Christianity or Islam over all the other religions then no.

If it is done within the larger scope of world history, or from as part of say a world literature track, with critical and dissenting views being allowed then by all means there should not be a problem with it.

 

[s2a]

Nope. I'm saying that our understanding of religion has evolved considerably since the early post-Enlightenment schools of though you are reflecting in your thoughts. You're arguing so... 300 years ago.

So, apparently my point isn't clear to you.

My apologies, missed the other part of your missive...

...I feel so much older now.

Spoken like a true modernist. No, these things are entire fields of study within postmoderist thought. Linguists, semiotics, structuralism, etc. It is a fact, in fact, that for instance what hits our eye and then registers to the brain occurs about a 10th of a second after the fact. So that alone says we are not interfacing directly with the world. Everything that enters into our brains is mediated through language symbols. And those symbols will actually block out data that does not fit those symbols. This has been demonstrated again and again, and their are many common examples of this you and I have been exposed to in these trick "illusion" things we've all seen. This is a but a tiny, miniscule example of huge amounts of information through the sciences we have into these areas.

and you call it BS.

Well, mostly B.S., yep. It's pleasant enough mental masturbation I'm sure, but it's B.S. to any that seek actual silly things like "facts" and evidence", or anything "new" to human comprehension or understanding. How one "feels" about existence, the natural world, or even simply enough the smell of freshly tilled earth in our hands, is NOT science. It may affect what is studied, experimented, explored, or deemed worthy of further examination..for we are indeed human beings. All areas of scientific study have merits within their own realm, no doubt about it. Heck, even philosophers can aid in expressing humanistic qualities of doubt, curiosity, pantslessness, and even love. But for all it's shouting and "look at me" ramblings and citations and quotations of similar peers and "thinkers" that have come before...philosophers are essentially observers of the past, not explorers of the present... much less of whatever may yet to come.

In life, some become astronomers... others become astronauts. Both "professions" offer their own measured value, but only a few actually touch what others only see from afar, well removed within that tube of strategically placed optical glass.

A very weak refutation, if this is what you meant it to be. The world is vastly more complex that simply physical objects. Yes, those are relatively stable objects in the environment. That there is a world out there we interact with is not in dispute. But how we understand the nature of what that is, the truth of it on deeply more complex levels that it's simple physical properties is. To take that as a starting point and project all knowledge to that type of thinking is laughably naive, but yet enormously appealing to those wanting to find security in clean simple understanding.

"The truth of it..."

Ah, the utter naivety of any that see "The Truth" to be so illusive, unobtainable, amorphous. Thank goodness for philosophers to explain it all to we dullards and morons that just willfully refuse to see "The Truth". Whew.

Of course none of this reflects the actual depth of what I'm talking about. I would never say these things.

Of course not.

*rolls eyes*

Again, you're imagining someone else out there in the ether somewhere, not me. This does not reflect my thoughts, nor those who talk to these points. It's misunderstanding project in extremes that don't reflect the truth of it.

Well, perhaps soon you will generously bestow upon us "The Truth" for all to enjoy and see with pinpoint and cutting clarity, clearing away all those dreaded atoms of obfuscation.

The new age of enlightenment is just around the corner... I can practically feel it....

 

[Windwalker]

Ah, the utter naivety of any that see "The Truth" to be so illusive, unobtainable, amorphous. Thank goodness for philosophers to explain it all to we dullards and morons that just willfully refuse to see "The Truth". Whew.

I think this summarizes your entire argument and worldview nicely. Thank you.

 

[Johansmith]

Ya i think so that children should have religious education. This help them to know more about humanity. but the education should be mixed so that kids know about all the religions.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Yes, if it is taught as comparative religion, philosophy of religion, history, or anthropology/archeology; and not as if it's doctrine is the truth. I think it could be part of a well rounded curriculum and could add to a person's overall education.

 

[s2a]

I think this summarizes your entire argument and worldview nicely. Thank you.

Of course, and my privilege.

I see patients in need on Mondays and Thurs.

Shall my receptionist call you to arrange an appointment?

 

[psychoslice]

Ya i think so that children should have religious education. This help them to know more about humanity. but the education should be mixed so that kids know about all the religions.

This is what I was going to say, why wast time at school if you are going to teach your own religion, that belongs in the home or church.

 

[Me Myself]

No, it wouldn't work. It would only add to the confusion and take away from more important subjects.
Leave that for the home., people can choose Saturday/sunday school studies etc.,

Church and state should not be combined.

You missed the point.

 

[Chalant]

Why should it be shoved down people's throats? This threatens freedom of religion, as young minds are susceptible to such ideas. Plus if the kids are of different religion it might cause confusion and even offense, and we all know how religious guys react to that

 

[natasha levchenko]

did our language come from the "Tower of Babel"?

 

[YmirGF]

I think it would be a huge benifit to society as a whole to start educating our kids about the different cultures that make up our world.

Most of us live in multi-cultural societies to begin with, and with boundries being defined (or obliterated) by the internet and the global economy now I think an understanding of different cultures, including religion, is vital just for the sake of being able to communicate and interact with each other.

That's all very well, Quaggy, but how do you ensure that the various religions are explained fairly? Do you talk about religions honestly or do you sugar-coat them and make everything just spiffy? Do you include things like Scientology or FLDS? Personally, I think it is a huge mistake and a colossal waste of time and resources.

 

[Falvlun]

I think a philosophy (with logic) class would be much more generally useful, and I'm a strong proponent of making such a class part of a general curriculum.

I think that a cultural or social studies class would be more useful than a religious one in order to introduce children to the big wide world of human experience; a basic overview of different religions in different cultures would not be remiss in such a class, since after all, culture and religion tend to be inextricably intertwined.

However, I would think that such a class would be best as a highschool elective.

 

[michel]

Hi all.

Should kids have mandatory religious education as part of the basic education (like math)? Should a kid who plant to be, say, a computer technician have to study religion? And I am thinking of religious education in the secular manner, i.e. teach about religion and not about which one is correct, and I am not talking about higher studies.

Personally I think that even if its not part of someones career, its still good because it combats ignorance and racism. Besides, you never know what happens in the future. If you end up with a hindu or buddhist boss it might be good to know a little about it and not just whatever prejudice you have picked up from random people.

Take care,
Kerr.

In England, both my sons were taught "Religious Education", which was a basic understanding of the main world religions (aged about 15, if I remember rightly)

 

[Cephus]

While some sort of general history of religion would be fine, it wouldn't work because local parents and teachers would only want to teach their particular religion and they wouldn't want to teach a general overview, they'd want to teach that it's actually true, which defeats the purpose of having a class in the first place. It's easier, at least until you get to the college level, to just keep religion completely out of school.

 

[dgirl1986]

Hi all.

Should kids have mandatory religious education as part of the basic education (like math)? Should a kid who plant to be, say, a computer technician have to study religion? And I am thinking of religious education in the secular manner, i.e. teach about religion and not about which one is correct, and I am not talking about higher studies.

Personally I think that even if its not part of someones career, its still good because it combats ignorance and racism. Besides, you never know what happens in the future. If you end up with a hindu or buddhist boss it might be good to know a little about it and not just whatever prejudice you have picked up from random people.

Take care,
Kerr.

I think that perhaps children should be given an overview of different religions in highschool as a part of social studies. I think if you want your kid to follow a particular religion or be taught in a particular religion then you should enrol them in a religious school.