Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Richard Dawkins interested in setting up atheist 'free school'
41 Answers
http://www.telegraph....eist-free-school.html
Good idea or not?
Would you choose such a school for your children, and if not, why not?
Your thoughts?
Good idea or not?
Would you choose such a school for your children, and if not, why not?
Your thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Any school that teaches that dogma is right, rather than just teaching facts, is to be avoided since it is failing in its role. That includes both belief and disbelief in a deity.
No problem with religious studies as a subject so long as it is just investigating the multitude of beliefs in the world without suggesting one is better than another. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that the beliefs of any of the groups can be a starting point for one's understanding of morality. To teach a religious book is just literature is to have started with the conclusion you wish the pupils to make.
It is a pity that the expression "free thinking" is usually just used to describe the belief that "if you don't believe in anything other than this material world like I do, then I claim your thinking isn't free".
In my limited experience of Prof. Dawkins book, the practice is to claim to be reasonable and not mean X, Y, and Z, then go on to claim X, Y, and Z anyway. I'm unsure how much I trust his words. He should stick to evolution which is a subject he has something to contribute to.
No problem with religious studies as a subject so long as it is just investigating the multitude of beliefs in the world without suggesting one is better than another. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that the beliefs of any of the groups can be a starting point for one's understanding of morality. To teach a religious book is just literature is to have started with the conclusion you wish the pupils to make.
It is a pity that the expression "free thinking" is usually just used to describe the belief that "if you don't believe in anything other than this material world like I do, then I claim your thinking isn't free".
In my limited experience of Prof. Dawkins book, the practice is to claim to be reasonable and not mean X, Y, and Z, then go on to claim X, Y, and Z anyway. I'm unsure how much I trust his words. He should stick to evolution which is a subject he has something to contribute to.
Old Geezer, disbelief in a deity is no more a dogma than is disbelief in astrology, spoon-bending, magic crystals or tealeaf-reading. It represents the the use of reason based on facts and evidence - the very opposite of dogma.
It seems that your experience of Dawkins' book (which one?) is certainly limited if that's what you draw from it.
It seems that your experience of Dawkins' book (which one?) is certainly limited if that's what you draw from it.
I agree with chakka35 and Waldo.
It's not about teaching religion or atheism. It's about teaching kids how to think critically and not as Old_Geezer says, about “free thinking”. Free thinking is just another way of saying “my mind is open to everything and anything”. That's not the same as critical thinking. In fact, they're almost polar opposites.
Everyone should be taught how to think critically. It is a fundamental skill to recognise the colossal volumes of utter dross that emanate from certain quarters of the press, the media, Governments and political pressure groups.
People should be aware of (and understand how to recognise and rebut) logical fallacies such as the false dilemma, the argument from ignorance, post hoc fallacy, personal attacks (argumentum ad hominem), the appeal to authority, the appeal from an anonymous authority, the complex question, non sequitors, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, etc.
If you don't know the mechanisms of how the wool can be pulled over your eyes then you are unable to think critically.
Any school that taught these techniques and principals as well as the scientific method would get my thumbs up.
It's not about teaching religion or atheism. It's about teaching kids how to think critically and not as Old_Geezer says, about “free thinking”. Free thinking is just another way of saying “my mind is open to everything and anything”. That's not the same as critical thinking. In fact, they're almost polar opposites.
Everyone should be taught how to think critically. It is a fundamental skill to recognise the colossal volumes of utter dross that emanate from certain quarters of the press, the media, Governments and political pressure groups.
People should be aware of (and understand how to recognise and rebut) logical fallacies such as the false dilemma, the argument from ignorance, post hoc fallacy, personal attacks (argumentum ad hominem), the appeal to authority, the appeal from an anonymous authority, the complex question, non sequitors, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, etc.
If you don't know the mechanisms of how the wool can be pulled over your eyes then you are unable to think critically.
Any school that taught these techniques and principals as well as the scientific method would get my thumbs up.
flobadob, the headline is open to misinterpretation, which is why, as I've already said, I put inverted commas around 'free school'.
As others have said, it's important to understand that the school Dawkins is talking about isn't simply 'anti religion', but would aim to teach children to think critically in all areas - and in my opinion that can only be beneficial.
Birdie said //If you don't know the mechanisms of how the wool can be pulled over your eyes then you are unable to think critically.// and I think that's absolutely right because people who are manipulated by others are, in the main, oblivious.
As others have said, it's important to understand that the school Dawkins is talking about isn't simply 'anti religion', but would aim to teach children to think critically in all areas - and in my opinion that can only be beneficial.
Birdie said //If you don't know the mechanisms of how the wool can be pulled over your eyes then you are unable to think critically.// and I think that's absolutely right because people who are manipulated by others are, in the main, oblivious.
"each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."
It was like this when I was at school, the service was Cof E but the RC children and the Buddhists didn't have to participate, they hung around outside and came in after the service so they could hear the rest of assembly. That felt to me more divisive than having no service at all. I am surprised that it was as recent as 1998 that this was determined - it doesn't seem to reflect today's society. My school today would no doubt have the majority of kids in the corridors whilst those who are church-goers (or to whom it makes no difference one way or the other) sang the hymn and recited the prayers.
It was like this when I was at school, the service was Cof E but the RC children and the Buddhists didn't have to participate, they hung around outside and came in after the service so they could hear the rest of assembly. That felt to me more divisive than having no service at all. I am surprised that it was as recent as 1998 that this was determined - it doesn't seem to reflect today's society. My school today would no doubt have the majority of kids in the corridors whilst those who are church-goers (or to whom it makes no difference one way or the other) sang the hymn and recited the prayers.
oldgeezer
"No problem with religious studies as a subject so long as it is just investigating the multitude of beliefs in the world without suggesting one is better than another. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that the beliefs of any of the groups can be a starting point for one's understanding of morality."
Couldn't agree more. We were taught no comparitive religions in sixities in my secondary school, RE was taught by a vicar. Gave me no idea about any other faiths, but I was sufficiently interested in my later years to make this something which really interests me and which has directed my later views.
"No problem with religious studies as a subject so long as it is just investigating the multitude of beliefs in the world without suggesting one is better than another. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that the beliefs of any of the groups can be a starting point for one's understanding of morality."
Couldn't agree more. We were taught no comparitive religions in sixities in my secondary school, RE was taught by a vicar. Gave me no idea about any other faiths, but I was sufficiently interested in my later years to make this something which really interests me and which has directed my later views.
Chakka: Of course disbelief in a deity is a dogma. One can not compare hypotheses on spiritual subjects and how things might be outside of the experienced physical realm, with unsubstantiated claims about what may occur within it. To try to do so is simply insulting.
I tried to read the God Illusion, and of course it is limited as IMO no normal individual could put up with the style whereby one thing is said and then blatantly disregarded. After a few chapters I asked myself why I was bothering, and put it down, hopefully never to have to pick it up again. It's not supposed to be a test of endurance the reader must go though; it is supposed to be Dawkins trying to put his side of the discussion. If one can not argue well one ought not prove it in a tedious and annoying book, unless it was just a money making scam that is.
I tried to read the God Illusion, and of course it is limited as IMO no normal individual could put up with the style whereby one thing is said and then blatantly disregarded. After a few chapters I asked myself why I was bothering, and put it down, hopefully never to have to pick it up again. It's not supposed to be a test of endurance the reader must go though; it is supposed to be Dawkins trying to put his side of the discussion. If one can not argue well one ought not prove it in a tedious and annoying book, unless it was just a money making scam that is.
Old_Geezer - “Of course disbelief in a deity is a dogma.”
No it isn't. Dogma literally means a 'belief system'.
Non-belief cannot be 'dogma'. If that were true, then it would be correct to describe a person who refused to believe that fairies live at the bottom of the garden as being dogmatic. But that would be to attempt to redefine the word to such an extent that the word itself becomes meaningless.
Non-belief is to dogma what bald is to hair colour.
“It's not supposed to be a test of endurance the reader must go though; it is supposed to be Dawkins trying to put his side of the discussion. If one can not argue well one ought not prove it in a tedious and annoying book...”
Dawkins, in my opinion, put the arguments very clearly and in a very readable manner. Just because you didn't enjoy it doesn't make the book 'tedious' or 'annoying' – it simply was not to your liking.
No it isn't. Dogma literally means a 'belief system'.
Non-belief cannot be 'dogma'. If that were true, then it would be correct to describe a person who refused to believe that fairies live at the bottom of the garden as being dogmatic. But that would be to attempt to redefine the word to such an extent that the word itself becomes meaningless.
Non-belief is to dogma what bald is to hair colour.
“It's not supposed to be a test of endurance the reader must go though; it is supposed to be Dawkins trying to put his side of the discussion. If one can not argue well one ought not prove it in a tedious and annoying book...”
Dawkins, in my opinion, put the arguments very clearly and in a very readable manner. Just because you didn't enjoy it doesn't make the book 'tedious' or 'annoying' – it simply was not to your liking.
Claims of certain knowledge can only be substantiated by a detailed description of the means by which the asserted knowledge is obtained and can only be related through shared experience.
Spiritualism, based on some form of mind/body dichotomy is purely a product of an unbridled imagination. Any asserted knowledge to the contrary is invariably found not to be observed in nor derived from reality, i.e. is unquestionably and undeniably utter dogma. Spiritualism is a fantasy, a castle in the sky without foundation rooted entirely in superstition with faith as its sole proprietor and reason its impenetrable gatekeeper.
To know that something is, is to know what it is as well as to know the means by which that knowledge is obtained. Apart from such verification there is no basis for certainty nor reason for believing.
Spiritualism, based on some form of mind/body dichotomy is purely a product of an unbridled imagination. Any asserted knowledge to the contrary is invariably found not to be observed in nor derived from reality, i.e. is unquestionably and undeniably utter dogma. Spiritualism is a fantasy, a castle in the sky without foundation rooted entirely in superstition with faith as its sole proprietor and reason its impenetrable gatekeeper.
To know that something is, is to know what it is as well as to know the means by which that knowledge is obtained. Apart from such verification there is no basis for certainty nor reason for believing.
Old Geezer, you offer a rather decisive critique of a book you haven't read. If you thought The God Delusion was too difficult, I have to wonder how you got on when you read the bible - or haven't you read that either?
//To teach a religious book is just literature is to have started with the conclusion you wish the pupils to make.//
So from which perspective do you suggest religious books be taught? Or perhaps you'd prefer they were not included at all.
//To teach a religious book is just literature is to have started with the conclusion you wish the pupils to make.//
So from which perspective do you suggest religious books be taught? Or perhaps you'd prefer they were not included at all.
Alas, Old G, your prejudices are showing again. Do you not know what dogma means?
I have explained it once, so has birdie. Let's try again:
Religious preaching is dogma. It comprises a set of beliefs which cannot be justified by fact, evidence, argument or reason. Nor is there any pretence that it can be. A religionist believes as a matter of faith without requiring justification. That is dogma.
Atheism is the result of applying fact, evidence, argument and reason to that dogma and rejecting it for very good expicable reasons. It is dogma turned on its head.
This is what Dawkins did in TGD and I'm sorry, though not surprised, that you did not appreciate just how clear his thinking is and how lucid his presentation - as it is in all his books. And, of course, as Waldo says, he is far from being the first person to expose religious belief like that. I became an atheist decades before I discovered Dawkins, and then it was his books on evolution that I read first.
By all means reject and criticise atheism (though it would be nice to hear it done rationally if possible) but to call it dogma is to misuse the language.
I have explained it once, so has birdie. Let's try again:
Religious preaching is dogma. It comprises a set of beliefs which cannot be justified by fact, evidence, argument or reason. Nor is there any pretence that it can be. A religionist believes as a matter of faith without requiring justification. That is dogma.
Atheism is the result of applying fact, evidence, argument and reason to that dogma and rejecting it for very good expicable reasons. It is dogma turned on its head.
This is what Dawkins did in TGD and I'm sorry, though not surprised, that you did not appreciate just how clear his thinking is and how lucid his presentation - as it is in all his books. And, of course, as Waldo says, he is far from being the first person to expose religious belief like that. I became an atheist decades before I discovered Dawkins, and then it was his books on evolution that I read first.
By all means reject and criticise atheism (though it would be nice to hear it done rationally if possible) but to call it dogma is to misuse the language.
Latest Posts
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Crosswords37 mins ago
News38 mins ago
Motoring40 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.