More education is always a wonderful idea

PZ,

When I initially heard about the ID in RE classes news story a few weeks ago I was conflicted. Mainly because I wasn't sure if the RE syllabus would include this comparative approach or not. If it did, all well and good, if it didn't then it's campaigning time!

I'm very pleased to note that the tiny flower of optimism I retained was borne out. I shall now being going after the hulking beast of pessimism that lurked about with a large stick! Well maybe only to beat it to a more manageable size.

I genuinely think that WELL TAUGHT, COMPARATIVE religious education is a vital inclusion in our schools. I think that poorly taught, thinly veiled propagandist religious education is a vital inclusion in our bins.

I do like the fact that IDC is being taught in RE classes. They'll find no objection from me! Science class is a different baby.

Louis

I am very much in favour of this! When I was at school, our RE classes were very fair - not too much emphasis on Christianity and even a bit about humanism, as I recall. Of course in those days I was a whiny teenage in-your-face-religion-is-rubbish-you-idiots hardcore atheist, so I was probably too busy practicing a scornful expression to take it in.

Nowadays, I'm still a hardcore atheist, but if religious education taught me one thing it's that telling people loudly that their beliefs are stupid isn't going to get them to agree with you.

Totally agree. I actually opted to do more RE at school - thanks to having a great teacher who loved a bit of discussion.

It has to be closely watched to make sure people don't slip certain things in under the radar though. It's also key that the important thing is the context and manner in which this stuff is taught, not the name of the class in which it's taught. Biased and faulty criticism of evolution needs to be kept out of all the classes - it's not OK for instance to claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is an argument against evolution even if it's claimed in an RE class.

Teaching why some people go against the evidence though can only be a good thing.

The problem with teaching ID in any setting is that, in some sense it's even less defined than Creationism. At least with Genesis we know where we stand.

But explaining that things are "irreducibly complex" or have "specified complexity" doesn't just mean nothing to uneducated school kids. It means nothing full stop.

Is it safe to teach something which looks like a science in a setting which has no scientific rigour. (And believe me, there is no class less rigorous than Religious and Moral Education. Biggest waste of my life.)

There are aspects of this that are positive, however there is also room for concern. I have no problem with teaching ID in religious classes, so long as this simply isn't an opportunity to teach what creationists want in science classes, in a slightly different guise.

In other words, I want to avoid some slimy RE teacher saying; "look kids, this is the exciting new science that destroys Darwinism. We have to teach it here, but really you can go ignore what you hear in biology."

In what way does the Big Bang Theory belong in a comparative religion class? Is that not just the usual Cretinist canard about how science is just another religion?

If they are going to teach about issues of authority, i'm sure they'll be able to address the difference between scientific origin theories and religious narratives on the same theme.

Britain is in a very different situation from the United States. Not only does it have an established religion, but it has much more national control over what is taught in local school districts, and many fewer fundamentalists. I think in America SteveF's vision of the future would prevail, with 'the exciting new science that destroys Darwinism' shoved down kids' throats and any kid who tried to point out the evidence for evolution trashed by his own teachers. It would be Kearny, NJ nationwide. Too bad. It actually would be good for kids, if creationists didn't cheat on the rules. But you know they always do.

parkrrr asked:

In what way does the Big Bang Theory belong in a comparative religion class? Is that not just the usual Cretinist canard about how science is just another religion?

To an extent, I share this concern, and I'm sure that our Disco Institute friends can spin it that way. (If they were too dense to imagine this, I heartily apologize for putting the idea in their poor lil' heads.) However:

I think it's entirely reasonable for a comparative religion class to include the fact that secular chronicles of the period have no mention of Jesus. The textbook should say that Josephus has one paragraph which mentions Jesus, jammed into the narrative in a markedly non-sequitur way, which almost all scholars believe was inserted by a later, excessively pious copyist. The textbook should also make room for the Gospel of Thomas and the story of its discovery, which leans on scientific spadework (e.g., radiocarbon dating).

Numerous places exist in which archaeological evidence should be described. When discussing Greco-Roman mythology, for example, how old was Greek civilization? When was Rome founded? Who built the temples to Zeus, Hera and Pallas Athena?

Did it really take a hundred thousand men thirty years to build the Great Pyramid of Giza, and what did Pharaoh Khufu believe that made the pyramid so necessary?

In order to compare religions in a sensible manner, we have to include historical information, much of which is essentially scientific in origin. This data pertains to no specific religion, and (unless the students are also taking Introductory Postmodernism) I doubt any of the young'uns enrolled will consider historical facts just the dogma of another religion.

The same holds true for the most overarching history of them all.

Of course, a great deal of this hope boils down to the expectation that teachers and officials will not deliberately subvert the curriculum. In England, we might not have to worry. In my home town back in Alabama. . . I'm not so sure.

It would be a wonderful thing to have good comparative religion classes in our schools. For someone like me, raised in a mainstream, low stress Methodist church-on-Xmas-&-Easter environment, it was not science or evolution per se that made me an atheist; it was indeed learning bit by bit about other religions and their histories as I got older. Religion is fascinating, and I feel that just like Penn & Teller say ("Read the bible. Become an atheist") studying it seriously can only weaken its hold. But even if that doesn't make folks atheists, fine, just as long as they don't go around thinking, you know, Catholics aren't Christians, or whatever.

What if they say Mormons aren't Christians?

Who gets to decide what defines a 'Christian', anyway?

The most obvious problem in my opinion and experience is that 'Religious Education' teachers seem to be about two rungs down from PE teachers in terms of intellectual ability (just below career advice counsellors). You just know that comparative religion classes in a lot of schools would consist of the 'Truth about the Goodness of Jesus' compared to the various manifestations of Satans evil plan (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Atheism, Darwinism etc).

Along similar lines, did you see "What would a creationist say when confronted with an archaeopteryx?"

I genuinely think that WELL TAUGHT, COMPARATIVE religious education is a vital inclusion in our schools. I think that poorly taught, thinly veiled propagandist religious education is a vital inclusion in our bins.

Dennett believes an world religions class should be mandatory for all (referring to the US) students, public private and homeschooled. (And homeschooling is where it would do wonders, I think.)

I think this is encouraging news from across the pond and I hope the US picks up on it. Doubtful though.

I must protest I see no inclusion of the true beginning of the world, the Cherokee Creation story

http://www.snowwowl.com/swolfstorycher1.html

What if they say Mormons aren't Christians?

A well designed comparative religion class would focus primarily on each religions definition of themselves (Mormon's call themselves Christian). Secondarily you would want to talk about how various sects view each other (some sects don't think Mormon's are real Christians). The fundamentalist Baptist view of Catholics (the pope is or will be an anti-Christ) and the Catholic view of all Protestants (not proper churches) should also be covered.

"Who gets to decide what defines a 'Christian', anyway?"

The Scotsmen, of course.

"Head-Asplodey Syndrome"

That's good. That's real good. I'll have to keep that one in my personal vernacular.

What in the world qualifies ID to be included in a comparative religion class? It's just thinly veiled, warmed over Christianity masquerading as science. ID has none of the normal trappings of a religion and they go out of their way to claim they're not a religion. To include them in a serious religious discussion is a farce.

Great in theory, not so sure in practice. The (Scottish) Comparitive Religious Education I recieved included multiple choice tests such as C.S. Lewis' Lord, Liar or Lunatic trilemma. Tough to spot the logical flaw when you are only 12 or 13 years old.

And, as others have noticed, its all about how something is taught, not what is taught.

Hey, I'm a scotsman. Does that mean I get to decide? When I was at school, three subjects were compulsory - English, Arithmetic and RE. RE tended to be more about ethical issues than Christianity, though I remember the teacher drawing a dead bee on the blackboard and asking which book of the bible it was. I thought my answer of Obadiah ( a bee die - aw!) was pretty good, but it was wrong. The answer of course is Nahum.

Check out all of the denial in this article:

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070123/NEWS/70123…

3 kids are killed in a senseless accident on their way back from a religious event, yet this is what one of their fathers has to say about it:

"I just know that God wanted him in that car," Ron Cheshire said. "That's where he was supposed to be, and I don't need to question that."

Well, I guess if God wants to kill kids, God can kill kids!

Look out, kids!

"Who gets to decide what defines a 'Christian', anyway?"

The Scotsmen, of course.

True, true.

Bob

When I took biology, we actually did cover ID (though this was a private high school). It was regarded very skeptically. The conclusion of the lesson was that, basically, ID is not science because it's not testable; religion and science are compatible. If this were the result of "teaching the controversy", I don't think it would be all that bad.

However, I disagree with these conclusions. If you formulate ID the right way, it is testable (and proven false). Likewise, some religious beliefs are falsifiable. Also, I think the non-falsifiability of certain religious claims is hardly a positive trait. If we can't test a claim, it might as well be false.

"Who gets to decide what defines a 'Christian', anyway?"
"The Scotsmen, of course."

...But who defines the Scotsmen?

--What if they say Mormons aren't Christians? Who gets to decide what defines a 'Christian', anyway?--

Historically and academically I think it's obvious who and what Christians are, to certain varying degrees. Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox & Mormons are Christians. Thinking Catholics are not Xians--which some groups believe--is almost willful ignorance, and can be corrected by comparative religion classes. I think. I hope.

"...But who defines the Scotsmen?"

The true Scotsmen. Duh.

"There would be an epidemic of Head-Asplodey Syndrome if such a course were taught in US schools, I fear."

I graduated from High School in 1989 and was required by Washington state to complete a year of "Contemporary Issues". As I recall it had a news analysis section, as well as a World Religions section. (I don't know how it was taught, as I left early for college and took the class long-distance. It seemed like an eminently sensible set of things to be learning - sort of "before we push you out the door, here's a primer on how to be a good citizen".)

It appears that this is no longer a requirement. Perhaps it's been subsumed into World History?

In my Catholic High School's sixth form college (16-18 years old), as part of my Religious Studies A-Level syllabus, we actually did study Dawkins, along with Kant, Plato, St Thomas Aquinas and six squillion other differing views. Admittedly that comes after the compulsory RE classes up to GCSE which this change covers.

For Biology A-Level, they preferred to teach us actual science, though.

I wonder if it is a sign of different cultures or times, but I can't for the life of me remember that atheism or science was discussed in our comparative religion texts. (But it has been a while.) Humanism as worldview was, IIRC.

Nor was different claims analyzed much. I don't think they need to - just recognizing and comparing different religions general descriptions and history is an antidote against anyone in particular. If you are already into one too deeply no amount of analysis will help much. Recognizing the absurdities and contradictions is a process that can't be scheduled.

That said, it can be revealing. My teacher was Lutheran. And his flaunting his views in class turned many away from religion for good. :-o

The question of who's a Christian brings to mind a story told by a high school teacher (in suburban HS outside of Philadelphia, 50% of whose students are Hispanic) whom I know. In pursuing a lesson on religion and its variety, he asked his students what their religions were. Only half raised their hands claiming Christianity as their faith. This puzzled Tim, so he as those who denied what their religion was. The answer came back "Roman Catholic." That says much about self perception and the image the Catholic church tries to project at the local level.

And incidentally, no one has mentioned that their is a sizeable minority within the Catholic Church who view the popes from John XXIII on as the anti-Christ and antithetical to traditional Catholicism. They maintain some pretty vile websites that dwell on theological purity and anything else you can imagine from the use of Latin in rites to abortion and sin. They are also strongly opposed to much science.

As for the topic of this thread, RE in schools is a good idea in theory. The devil is in implementing it, especially here in the US. There are far too many teachers and administrators--a minority but nonetheless a large minority--who would see it as an opportunity to proselytize. And, of course, trying to teach an undefined idea like ID, to say nothing of IC, in any coherent fashion would be nigh impossible. After all, even its advocates can't clearly state either.

Strongbadzone, PZ?

Have a culture star!

For a detailed understanding of what is meant by this recommendation look at the relevant QCA unit of work:

http://www.qca.org.uk/downloads/qca-06-2728_y9_science_religion_master…

I think it looks pretty good.

I go to a public school in NY and I don't have any RE classes. There's a Bible Club, but they're all in hiding. Really, what is this with theology belonging in school? It's the exact opposite of learning, and since school is supposed to be a "learning environment," there shouldn't be any theology classes. Period.

I think this is a wonderful idea, especially if they model it after University courses in comparative religion or the philosophy of religion. I found the undergraduate courses I took in the philosophy of religion to be quite informative and even fun. (But then again, that's only because I got to dominate the discussions and utterly destroy the arguments of the few creationists in the class, who used the "second law of thermodynamics" argument as well as the "why are there still monkeys?" argument.)

--"why are there still monkeys?"--

I love that one--what do they expect scientists to say? "Oh, my god, you're right! We hadn't noticed the monkeys! Our theory is in shambles!" Really? Really?!

"I genuinely think that WELL TAUGHT, COMPARATIVE religious education is a vital inclusion in our schools. I think that poorly taught, thinly veiled propagandist religious education is a vital inclusion in our bins."

Unforunately while the ciriculum may state that the former is the intention many RE teachers seem to take think the latter is more appropriate.
In my experience most RE in the UK takes the view that christianity is of course correct and other religions are simply presented as things some people believe. I recall endless lessons on the trinity, resurrection, eucharist other minutiae of christianity, and only one or two lessons for the whole of Islam etc.
In High school RE I actually got taught that there was more written evidence for the existance of Jesus than for Julius Caesar.
So I don't have much faith in ID being properly discussed in RE.

Yes, "well taught" is the key. A comparitive religion class could be a thinly veiled propaganda program for religion; it could also be a thinly veiled propaganda program for atheism.

Now why would PZ be interested in this? He fucking hates religion. Obviously he believes that this will be more opportunity to attack religion, other wise there is NO WAY he would back it.

Fuck a liar.

It's not all bad. My RE teacher was great. I was in a course that had quite a few atheists in it and there was a lot of debating. We disagreed on everything, but he discussed everything. All you can ask for...

I remember one incident during a religious education class in secondary school (about 1982 in the Irish midlands) when our teacher, a priest, told us about the Roman Catholic church's attitude to homosexuality. He explained that the church did not condemn homosexuals at all, just homosexual acts. One of my classmates made the astute remark that, in that case perhaps the church should try to recruit lots of homosexuals to become priests - as the whole 'priest celibacy' thing would fit in perfectly in that regard.
To say some sort of emotional button got pressed is a bit of an understatement as basically he flew into a totally out of character rage, shouting and cursing at us all!

Anti Krebs (a troll?),

Yes, "well taught" is the key. A comparitive religion class could be a thinly veiled propaganda program for religion; it could also be a thinly veiled propaganda program for atheism.

That's the great thing about comparative religion, the more religions you look at the more the logical conclusion must be "well duh, maybe NONE of these religions is literally true" and you can start looking at religion as a cultural and historical artifact instead, which actually would make for some interesting study.

Fuck a wanker.

Nah. It's too intimate.

Disemvowel instead.

I'm not sure that I like this idea. Who, in reality, is going to put their hand up to teach this course/subject? My first guess is 'religious folk' - and that immediately imparts a bias on what religion gets most attention.

and also considers the perspective of those who do not believe there is a god (atheists).

Hey! They got the definition right!

And incidentally, no one has mentioned that their is a sizeable minority within the Catholic Church who view the popes from John XXIII on as the anti-Christ and antithetical to traditional Catholicism.

Now, these people exist, but all three of them together do not constitute "a sizable minority". Even Mel Gibson, who AFAIK believes in something like that, isn't "a sizable minority".

I have had RE at school (in Austria). More than a year was almost entirely spent on other religions than (Roman Catholic) Christianity, the 2nd Vatican Council was treated in quite some detail, the teacher said "a God that could be proven would be outright poor", and so on. Even though I could have opted out in the last IIRC 4 years, I stayed all the way through because it was interesting. -- But I understand this could hardly work in the US Bible Belt.

I just wrote:

But I understand this could hardly work in the US Bible Belt.

That's not just about the teachers. After a lesson when our teacher once said he had had much trouble with the Book of Revelation and in the end decided that the message of that book was "all will be well (in the end anyway)", some of my fellow students wondered why he hadn't just ignored that book then, and this even though it later came out all of them believed, at the very least, in some kind of (single, more or less personal) deity. (It goes without saying that all were officially Roman Catholic.) That's Europe for you, I gather.

I had comparitive religion in high school as part of what was then "Moral and Religious Education". Unfortunately, it was taught completely uncritically: the stories of the patriarchs (Abraham) were presented as historical fact; Jesus was taken as a historical character without any acknowledgement about the paucity of external evidence for that; Acts was taken as history, etc. A good, crticial, course would be good, but I suspect that a lot of parents (even here) who would be in favour of a wishy-washy uncritical course would have a fit if they heard their kids were looking into the (non)evidence for the existence of Abraham or learning about the two creation stories in Genesis, etc.

Yes. Absolutely.

I'm all for comparative religion.

A thorough discussion of ID (or any other current religion, for that matter) will show it to be no more real than Norse Mythology. (Actually, Norse Mythology is a damn sight more internally consistent than Christioanity)

I think this is a good idea. In RE class yes. ID/Creationism isn't science, they don't produce anything.

I think this is a good idea. In RE class yes. ID/Creationism isn't science, they don't produce anything.

I like the idea of a Comparative Religion class. It's already passed Constitutional muster and would likely be one of the most beneficial classes a high school student could take for all the reason stated by previous posters.

Judging from the attitudes of some of my peers, it would certainly be difficult to find someone who would honestly present the topic. The big problem is, that in many school districts, honestly teaching the topic looks to me like career suicide. Fundie parents will rip the heads off of anyone suggesting that any option other than you-know-what could have equal footing. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but Kearny, NJ suggests otherwise.

When I think of my time in school and even the bible courses in church, it was always clear that the bible had to be taken metaphorically. That made perfect sense to me and what turned me away from it all was in fact the realization that I got that bit wrong, that all of it had to be taken literally, unless I wanted to burn in hell. Well, not me, sir.
But to the point: The school I attented was a private school, partially owned by the church (protestant, northern germany) but you wouldn´t have known it, unless you asked. In the last years you could choose between courses in Religion and "Values" and there we analyzed creation myths of all cultures and religions and it was extremely interesting to see the evolution of them and to realize that the more sophisticated and developed the human mind became, the more abstract and metaphorical those myths were. You could almost extrapolate to the point where it became so refined that god would disappear in a puff of logic.

Addendum: Not the human mind as an biological entity became more developed but the tools, the philosophy due to cultural evolution.

The Brits and the Aussies have had religious instruction classes in their public schools for a long time. I attribute the large % of skeptics, agnostics and atheists in these countries to this policy. :)

>Judging from the attitudes of some of my peers, it would certainly be difficult to find someone who would honestly present the topic.
And what about having a number of courses where specialists from other religions would come and present it themselves ? I don't know how practical this is, but having local priests, rabbis etc (and probably atheists) come in and discuss will at least show the students that these are not baby killers ?

My theory that getting into organized religion is analogous to entering a foggy, boggy swamp may have a corollary: It may be incumbent upon those of us who have not entered the swamp to rescue those who have.

The nice ones, anyway.

I am extremely annoyed that ID will be taught in our RE classes. This is a victory for the IDers, and they know it. They now have a platform for their ridiculous ideas in our schools. Few RE teachers will have the guts to tell their pupils that it is total bollocks, most will remain pathetically neutral (like they are supposed to), some in the religious-leaning schools will promote ID as having merit.

The best solution is to scrap RE in schools altogether and leave religious indoctrination to the churches, temples, mosques, synagogues and spaghetti parlours.

or learning about the two creation stories in Genesis, etc.

Good that you remind me: I was taught that in RE. I kid thee not.

I wonder if it is a sign of different cultures or times, but I can't for the life of me remember that atheism or science was discussed in our comparative religion texts. (But it has been a while.) Humanism as worldview was, IIRC.

Nor was different claims analyzed much. I don't think they need to - just recognizing and comparing different religions general descriptions and history is an antidote against anyone in particular. If you are already into one too deeply no amount of analysis will help much. Recognizing the absurdities and contradictions is a process that can't be scheduled.

That said, it can be revealing. My teacher was Lutheran. And his flaunting his views in class turned many away from religion for good. :-o

And incidentally, no one has mentioned that their is a sizeable minority within the Catholic Church who view the popes from John XXIII on as the anti-Christ and antithetical to traditional Catholicism.

Now, these people exist, but all three of them together do not constitute "a sizable minority". Even Mel Gibson, who AFAIK believes in something like that, isn't "a sizable minority".

I have had RE at school (in Austria). More than a year was almost entirely spent on other religions than (Roman Catholic) Christianity, the 2nd Vatican Council was treated in quite some detail, the teacher said "a God that could be proven would be outright poor", and so on. Even though I could have opted out in the last IIRC 4 years, I stayed all the way through because it was interesting. -- But I understand this could hardly work in the US Bible Belt.

I just wrote:

But I understand this could hardly work in the US Bible Belt.

That's not just about the teachers. After a lesson when our teacher once said he had had much trouble with the Book of Revelation and in the end decided that the message of that book was "all will be well (in the end anyway)", some of my fellow students wondered why he hadn't just ignored that book then, and this even though it later came out all of them believed, at the very least, in some kind of (single, more or less personal) deity. (It goes without saying that all were officially Roman Catholic.) That's Europe for you, I gather.

or learning about the two creation stories in Genesis, etc.

Good that you remind me: I was taught that in RE. I kid thee not.