I am happy to say that a state educational system should keep away from religion.
That is if one believes that it is the state which has the absolute right to tell its citizens what to believe and what not to believe.
State education is less likely to do this than religious education.
Formal religious education by the state results in the reduction of rights for, or persecution of, religious minorities.
In democratic societies, the people do have a voice in the education system. But one reason we have representative democracies instead of direct democracies is to protect minority voices. Religion as part of the state does the exact opposite.
Umm... Scotland has state Catholic schools precisely to protect our (historically) largest religious minority.
"We serve every drinker's taste; we have burgundy and rosé."
And still susceptible to the same issues that religion brings.
In what way can 'comparative religion' be 'taught' ?
The moment you say ' christianity teaches........... you could be accused of indoctrinating others.
Even if you add 'islam teaches............, judaism teaches........... hinduism teaches...........
you are still giving information which may attract people to that particular religion.
And to be fair how can you mention every single religious philosophy,for if you don't you could be accused of being biased in favour of some religions and not others
In a pluralist,'multicultural' society we have to allow people to express their views, even in the matter of education of their offspring, but we have to find ways in our modern society to show respect for the views of others which may not in some respects be the same as ours.
It is within this context that I think that comparative religion can be a useful tool.
No religion should be taught in school. Full stop. Religious teaching should be reserved for home or private lessons separate from formal education.
Do you mean:
1.) State schools should not teach: 'Jesus was the Son of God'; or:
2.) State schools should not teach: 'Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God'?
I agree with (1) but not (2). Let's accept for the sake of argument that Christian beliefs are totally irrational. It seems to me useful to know that there are people wandering round society with these irrational beliefs, so that one knows what to expect when they start acting on them.
1 Definitely.
2 is not as simple as you appear to posit. Because what you posted should then mean every religion is discussed. Or at least all of the reasonably popular ones.
In reality, religion is part of history. So teaching how it interacts with politics and culture is not a bad thing.
So you take back what you said, then.
Not at all. Teaching about the effect of religion on history is a different thing to teaching religion.
In what way can 'comparative religion' be 'taught' ?
The moment you say ' christianity teaches........... you could be accused of indoctrinating others.
Even if you add 'islam teaches............, judaism teaches........... hinduism teaches...........
you are still giving information which may attract people to that particular religion.
And to be fair how can you mention every single religious philosophy,for if you don't you could be accused of being biased in favour of some religions and not others
In a pluralist,'multicultural' society we have to allow people to express their views, even in the matter of education of their offspring, but we have to find ways in our modern society to show respect for the views of others which may not in some respects be the same as ours.
It is within this context that I think that comparative religion can be a useful tool.
No religion should be taught in school. Full stop. Religious teaching should be reserved for home or private lessons separate from formal education.
Do you mean:
1.) State schools should not teach: 'Jesus was the Son of God'; or:
2.) State schools should not teach: 'Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God'?
I agree with (1) but not (2). Let's accept for the sake of argument that Christian beliefs are totally irrational. It seems to me useful to know that there are people wandering round society with these irrational beliefs, so that one knows what to expect when they start acting on them.
1 Definitely.
2 is not as simple as you appear to posit. Because what you posted should then mean every religion is discussed. Or at least all of the reasonably popular ones.
In reality, religion is part of history. So teaching how it interacts with politics and culture is not a bad thing.
So you take back what you said, then.
Not at all. Teaching about the effect of religion on history is a different thing to teaching religion.
To nutshell it...
I think lilbuddha would support a lesson like "The Catholic Church taught that good works were neccessary for salvation, but Luther disagreed with that."
Lilbuddha would not support a lesson like "The Catholics were wrong to teach that good works were neccessary for salvation but, praise the Lord, we had Luther come along to lead the world back to truth."
In what way can 'comparative religion' be 'taught' ?
The moment you say ' christianity teaches........... you could be accused of indoctrinating others.
Even if you add 'islam teaches............, judaism teaches........... hinduism teaches...........
you are still giving information which may attract people to that particular religion.
And to be fair how can you mention every single religious philosophy,for if you don't you could be accused of being biased in favour of some religions and not others
In a pluralist,'multicultural' society we have to allow people to express their views, even in the matter of education of their offspring, but we have to find ways in our modern society to show respect for the views of others which may not in some respects be the same as ours.
It is within this context that I think that comparative religion can be a useful tool.
No religion should be taught in school. Full stop. Religious teaching should be reserved for home or private lessons separate from formal education.
Do you mean:
1.) State schools should not teach: 'Jesus was the Son of God'; or:
2.) State schools should not teach: 'Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God'?
I agree with (1) but not (2). Let's accept for the sake of argument that Christian beliefs are totally irrational. It seems to me useful to know that there are people wandering round society with these irrational beliefs, so that one knows what to expect when they start acting on them.
1 Definitely.
2 is not as simple as you appear to posit. Because what you posted should then mean every religion is discussed. Or at least all of the reasonably popular ones.
In reality, religion is part of history. So teaching how it interacts with politics and culture is not a bad thing.
So you take back what you said, then.
Not at all. Teaching about the effect of religion on history is a different thing to teaching religion.
To nutshell it...
I think lilbuddha would support a lesson like "The Catholic Church taught that good works were neccessary for salvation, but Luther disagreed with that."
Lilbuddha would not support a lesson like "The Catholics were wrong to teach that good works were neccessary for salvation but, praise the Lord, we had Luther come along to lead the world back to truth."
Better, but only if also taught with the power dynamics that accompanied the Reformation and how that effected power and society in general.
In what way can 'comparative religion' be 'taught' ?
The moment you say ' christianity teaches........... you could be accused of indoctrinating others.
Even if you add 'islam teaches............, judaism teaches........... hinduism teaches...........
you are still giving information which may attract people to that particular religion.
And to be fair how can you mention every single religious philosophy,for if you don't you could be accused of being biased in favour of some religions and not others
In a pluralist,'multicultural' society we have to allow people to express their views, even in the matter of education of their offspring, but we have to find ways in our modern society to show respect for the views of others which may not in some respects be the same as ours.
It is within this context that I think that comparative religion can be a useful tool.
No religion should be taught in school. Full stop. Religious teaching should be reserved for home or private lessons separate from formal education.
Do you mean:
1.) State schools should not teach: 'Jesus was the Son of God'; or:
2.) State schools should not teach: 'Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God'?
I agree with (1) but not (2). Let's accept for the sake of argument that Christian beliefs are totally irrational. It seems to me useful to know that there are people wandering round society with these irrational beliefs, so that one knows what to expect when they start acting on them.
1 Definitely.
2 is not as simple as you appear to posit. Because what you posted should then mean every religion is discussed. Or at least all of the reasonably popular ones.
In reality, religion is part of history. So teaching how it interacts with politics and culture is not a bad thing.
So you take back what you said, then.
Not at all. Teaching about the effect of religion on history is a different thing to teaching religion.
To nutshell it...
I think lilbuddha would support a lesson like "The Catholic Church taught that good works were neccessary for salvation, but Luther disagreed with that."
Lilbuddha would not support a lesson like "The Catholics were wrong to teach that good works were neccessary for salvation but, praise the Lord, we had Luther come along to lead the world back to truth."
Better, but only if also taught with the power dynamics that accompanied the Reformation and how that effected power and society in general.
Yeah, I was gonna throw in something about the long-term sociopolitical impact etc of that dispute, but I wanted to keep it brief.
Although Scotland indeed has 'state Catholic schools' this is not to say that the state insists that children must attend these schools. No Scottish child is obliged by the state to attend a Catholic school. No Scottish child is obliged by the state to accept the religious teachings put forward in these schools. All state funded and administered Catholic schools have to accept, within limits of availability and capacity obviously, all who apply for places.
A good number of non-Catholics will apply including many Muslims. State funded Catholic schools are obliged to make suitable arrangements for those educated in such schools who are not Catholic.
We have to look to the future but there is a certain amount of truth in what would have been said many years ago that Catholic schools were transferred over 100 years ago into state hands simply to keep the low class Catholics away from the better class of Protestants who would have attended the 'non-denominational' schools. This has all changed certainly within the last 50 years.
My main point for lilbuddha is that certainly these schools are state sponsored but are responding to a desire on the part of parents, not enforcement on the part of the state.
Approximately 20% of Scottish schools are Catholic schools. The percentage of those in France who voluntarily opt for Catholic schools in France is approximately the same.
A mature society should be able to accept within it people of diverse views and outlooks.
The difficulty with "civics" education is its potential to become indoctrination into whatever political belief-system the educators hold (whether that's the beliefs of teachers or of the Ministry of Education).
Does Canada allow "First Nations" schools that teach the history of the tribe ? What checks are in place to prevent an 'us and them" mentality being taught ?
Not sure how much of a tangent this is...
Not much of a tangent I think.
Re First Nations. The recent push in education and societal awareness are about trying to balance the traditionally taught history from the perspective of the "colonists" and "settlers" with the history of the people who were in Canada's territory before they showed up, and after with the difficult interactions- theft of land, forced on to small reserves of land, pass laws like South Africa's apartheid regime, taking children away from families to eradicate the culture and language, taking children and adopting them against the wishes of their parents. That sort of thing.
Three things. They've had massive reviews of education by large groups of stakeholders, and the review is ongoing to ensure information is provided in as factual ways as possible. Second, that most of Canada's people are actually immigrants themselves or children of immigrants. Thus understanding of the racism, structural and systemic has also included this understanding re most of the immigrants are non-white. Third, it is not a persecution of the settler-colonist people. It's about "truth and reconciliation". It is messy, conflictual and difficult. Parts of it offend.
My main point for lilbuddha is that certainly these schools are state sponsored but are responding to a desire on the part of parents, not enforcement on the part of the state.
It doesn't matter who is driving the bus, the route is the issue.
The problem is still presenting a religion as the default.
A mature society should be able to accept within it people of diverse views and outlooks.
All sarcasm aside, recent events suggest we do not have a mature society. And, again, one group* being the default still suggests that it is the correct one. Everyone being welcome to hear how one religion is the best is not quite the same thing as accepting diverse views.
*Despite the sectarian animosity, Catholics and protestants are still all Christians.
If the route is the issue,as lilbudda says, why should religion be allowed to be mentioned in the private sphere ? If it is bad for the state to sponsor religious education, is it not also bad for parents to attempt to teach their children about particular religions.
Is it possible to 'accept diverse views' if we have no views of our own to compare these 'diverse views' with ? What is the purpose of discussing 'diverse views' if one has no 'diverse views' to discuss.
I have no difficulty personally in hearing 'diverse views' I welcome them but I am also happy to be grounded in my own views and be able to compare and contrast the views of others.
I spoke about sectarian problems of long ago of which as a child I was very aware but I am glad that things have moved on and I am happy to affirm that Catholics and Protestants are Christians, just as I am glad to affirm that Christians, Jews ,Muslims,Hindus, Agnostics and Atheists etc.are all human beings.
I agree entirely with lilbuddha that we do not always seem to have a mature society but I do not think that that should stop us from trying to create a more mature society, accepting a diversity of creed, colour, language, sexuality and interests etc.
And, again, one group* being the default still suggests that it is the correct one. Everyone being welcome to hear how one religion is the best is not quite the same thing as accepting diverse views.
*Despite the sectarian animosity, Catholics and protestants are still all Christians.
I note that people who view religion as part of the problem, not part of the solution, never count themselves as a group. The idea that religion as such is sufficiently dangerous that it has to be kept outside the classroom when criticism or satire of religion are allowed in is not actually accepting diverse views either.
Please. Formal education as in the state curriculum. NOprophet_NØprofit had no problem wroking that out.
That's because you and NP share a conviction that there should be one compulsory state curriculum taught in all schools, and that all formal education happens in schools. If you don't share that conviction, then "formal education" and "state curriculum" are not even slightly the same thing.
If what you mean is "there should be a single national curriculum that all schools should be forced to use, and it should not include religion" then say that.
I'm not clear on whether you think that schools with some sort of religious foundation should be allowed to exist at all, and if so, whether those schools should be able to teach about religion in addition to your compulsory curriculum. If what you want to say is "all children should be forced to attend government schools that should not teach about religion" then it would be clearer to say so.
If the route is the issue,as lilbudda says, why should religion be allowed to be mentioned in the private sphere ? If it is bad for the state to sponsor religious education, is it not also bad for parents to attempt to teach their children about particular religions.
Those are different things. Whilst parents can certainly try to indoctrinate their children, it is much more effective if the state does so as well. And
Is it possible to 'accept diverse views' if we have no views of our own to compare these 'diverse views' with ? What is the purpose of discussing 'diverse views' if one has no 'diverse views' to discuss.
The idea that children will be formless robots if they do not recieve sectarian information in school is rather strange.
I agree entirely with lilbuddha that we do not always seem to have a mature society but I do not think that that should stop us from trying to create a more mature society, accepting a diversity of creed, colour, language, sexuality and interests etc.
Removing religion from schools is not the antithesis of acceptance, but closer to the promotion of it.
And, again, one group* being the default still suggests that it is the correct one. Everyone being welcome to hear how one religion is the best is not quite the same thing as accepting diverse views.
*Despite the sectarian animosity, Catholics and protestants are still all Christians.
I note that people who view religion as part of the problem, not part of the solution, never count themselves as a group. The idea that religion as such is sufficiently dangerous that it has to be kept outside the classroom when criticism or satire of religion are allowed in is not actually accepting diverse views either.
False dichotomy. I am not saying the effects of religion, positive as well as negative, should not be discussed in schools. I am saying that religion should not be taught in schools. There is a difference.
Please. Formal education as in the state curriculum. NOprophet_NØprofit had no problem wroking that out.
That's because you and NP share a conviction that there should be one compulsory state curriculum taught in all schools, and that all formal education happens in schools. If you don't share that conviction, then "formal education" and "state curriculum" are not even slightly the same thing.
If what you mean is "there should be a single national curriculum that all schools should be forced to use, and it should not include religion" then say that.
I'm not clear on whether you think that schools with some sort of religious foundation should be allowed to exist at all, and if so, whether those schools should be able to teach about religion in addition to your compulsory curriculum. If what you want to say is "all children should be forced to attend government schools that should not teach about religion" then it would be clearer to say so.
The state formal curriculum should be taught in separate schools to religious curriculum. No school should teach both.
BTW, "Forced to attend" is such a bloody loaded term and useless to actually discussion. Children currently face compulsory education, regardless of whether the school is religious.
@Leorning Cniht
We have tax-funded school systems here. One is Roman Catholic because of the historical French catholic fact of Canada when the province was created in 1905: it's part of the constitution. The other was originally thought of protestant, but is fully secular presently. It also must follow the provincial curriculum also. The RC schools are allowed to teach "Christian ethics". When you pay education tax, you must attest to being of the faith community to direct your payment to it. However, the provincial gov't overrode the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has allowed non-RC children to attend RC schools and their parents to pay tax to RC. Our rural situation is complicated re distances to schools and school closures due to depopulation, and the gov't has noted (election yesterday) that a right wing extreme party "Buffalo Party" (renamed from Wexit) is second place in some parts of Saskatchewan. The Buffalo people are extreme in all the usual ways.
Back to provincial curriculum: it avoids things like very stressful uniform final exams for university entrance.
"Erdogan and Khan [Muslims in general?] have no right to talk about "Islamophobia" when their governments show no respect to people of other faiths." ergo what level of "give" should western countries have to Muslim sensibilities? Which also shows that Muslims are "other" and outsiders to European countries.
"Erdogan and Khan [Muslims in general?] have no right to talk about "Islamophobia" when their governments show no respect to people of other faiths." ergo what level of "give" should western countries have to Muslim sensibilities? Which also shows that Muslims are "other" and outsiders to European countries.
The Muslims in Germany are not responsible for the behaviour of Imran Khan and Tayip Erdogan. We recognise holding people collectively responsible for the evil it is in other cases.
In my world, a secular school would not be permitted to teach that Jesus is the son of God, but they would be permitted to teach Christians believe Jesus is the son of God. (Note the verb tense). Islam says Jesus is a great prophet. Judaism says he was a Rabbi, Bahai says he was sent from God, Hindus say he was a wise man. Buddhist say he was an enlightened man.
And, again, one group* being the default still suggests that it is the correct one. Everyone being welcome to hear how one religion is the best is not quite the same thing as accepting diverse views.
*Despite the sectarian animosity, Catholics and protestants are still all Christians.
I note that people who view religion as part of the problem, not part of the solution, never count themselves as a group. The idea that religion as such is sufficiently dangerous that it has to be kept outside the classroom when criticism or satire of religion are allowed in is not actually accepting diverse views either.
False dichotomy. I am not saying the effects of religion, positive as well as negative, should not be discussed in schools. I am saying that religion should not be taught in schools. There is a difference.
But does this not imply that "religion" is an inessential add-on and that the "default" position is to exclude it?
And, again, one group* being the default still suggests that it is the correct one. Everyone being welcome to hear how one religion is the best is not quite the same thing as accepting diverse views.
*Despite the sectarian animosity, Catholics and protestants are still all Christians.
I note that people who view religion as part of the problem, not part of the solution, never count themselves as a group. The idea that religion as such is sufficiently dangerous that it has to be kept outside the classroom when criticism or satire of religion are allowed in is not actually accepting diverse views either.
False dichotomy. I am not saying the effects of religion, positive as well as negative, should not be discussed in schools. I am saying that religion should not be taught in schools. There is a difference.
But does this not imply that "religion" is an inessential add-on and that the "default" position is to exclude it?
No, it doesn't. It implies that religion is a personal thing. There is nothing wrong with teaching one's children a particular religion. The problem is positioning any particular religion as THE TRUTH.
And, again, one group* being the default still suggests that it is the correct one. Everyone being welcome to hear how one religion is the best is not quite the same thing as accepting diverse views.
*Despite the sectarian animosity, Catholics and protestants are still all Christians.
I note that people who view religion as part of the problem, not part of the solution, never count themselves as a group. The idea that religion as such is sufficiently dangerous that it has to be kept outside the classroom when criticism or satire of religion are allowed in is not actually accepting diverse views either.
False dichotomy. I am not saying the effects of religion, positive as well as negative, should not be discussed in schools. I am saying that religion should not be taught in schools. There is a difference.
But does this not imply that "religion" is an inessential add-on and that the "default" position is to exclude it?
No, it doesn't. It implies that religion is a personal thing.
Is it, though? Most religion, it seems to me, is social.
It would seem from lilbuddha's last post that the problem lies in positioning any particular religion as THE TRUTH. This must mean that it is also wrong for parents to tell their children privately that 'their' religion is true.
By extension it would mean that it is wrong for parents to delegate that 'positioning of a particular religion' to any formally organised religious body and to send children to church, just as NPNP's mother did long ago with him.
Certainly in Europe,even where there are 'state' churches (Nordic countries and Greece)
and countries like Germany where there are a number of religious communities where money is in-gathered by church taxes for the use of the churches,no-one is obliged to accept that what any of these churches may teach is THE TRUTH. The state may,however see it as a useful help towards social cohesion if religious bodies are given help with the taxes which the individual members of the state have paid
As another poster said to me we are all aware that we are seeking THE TRUTH,but we find it in different ways.
Religion,like many things, can mean different things to different people.
It can be a deeply personal thing in the relationship between an individual and God
It can be,as Arethosemyfeet has said, a social thing with people feeling a part of a particular community and rejoicing in the company of like minded people ( as well as enjoying the opportunity to discuss with those who are not of the same mind).
lilbuddha's ideas remind me of the Soviet Union which in principle allowed freedom of religious worship and freedom of atheistic propaganda. If the State allowed it ,churches could remain open and religious worship take place as long as they didn't say anything apart from liturgy and as long as they did not send their children to church or have them baptised.
As another poster said to me we are all aware that we are seeking THE TRUTH,but we find it in different ways.
I demur. There are plenty of people I know who aren't interested in THE TRUTH at all, just in living their lives, enjoying the company of friends and family, putting food on the table, and so on. If they think about THE TRUTH at all, it's as something that bothers other people, whatever, if it works for them, etc.
It would seem from lilbuddha's last post that the problem lies in positioning any particular religion as THE TRUTH. This must mean that it is also wrong for parents to tell their children privately that 'their' religion is true.
Jesus this is ridiculous. Simply, purely and completely ridiculous. So much so it is difficult to credit as honest.
It would seem from lilbuddha's last post that the problem lies in positioning any particular religion as THE TRUTH. This must mean that it is also wrong for parents to tell their children privately that 'their' religion is true.
I don't think lilbuddha said that but as a religious parent, I think that it would be a stupid parenting decision to portray my religion as the truth. Particularly if I want my children to believe it. Take my 12 year old, for instance. She is very smart and very very inclined to think for herself. If I told her X was the truth without proof, it would encourage her to doubt. Instead, I tell her what I believe to be the truth and encourage her to investigate it. So far that seems more persuasive to her, and certainly it is more honest! I cannot know there is a Christ anyway. I only know that I believe there is one, etc.
As another poster said to me we are all aware that we are seeking THE TRUTH,but we find it in different ways.
I demur. There are plenty of people I know who aren't interested in THE TRUTH at all, just in living their lives, enjoying the company of friends and family, putting food on the table, and so on. If they think about THE TRUTH at all, it's as something that bothers other people, whatever, if it works for them, etc.
Yes. The idea of the truth sounds to me like some adolescent pursuit. How can such an abstraction lead anywhere?
When children are young @Forthview, we do instruct them and lead into things we think are important. If we raise children to think for themselves, they then decide what they believe. We may come into conflict with them, as the children in their identity formation provoke parents to defend their beliefs. If we want to continue to have relationships with adult children, we accept their decisions about what to believe. We may also avoid talking about certain things.
My, now very ancient, doctoral research was about how parents are provoked in mid-life to question themselves because their children in adolescence are sorting out their identity issues. I don't think Erik Erikson's stages of development and the ideas of "identity crisis" are thought of much any more, but I do find the stages of development having application in longitudinal lifespan studies very interesting. Stuff like the 75 year Grant Study and George Vaillant's writings about. It began in the years 1940-45.
The UK "Up series" of programs is another version of this type of study: I agree with the Wikipedia note: 28-Up is the best of the series. It began in 1964.
It would seem from lilbuddha's last post that the problem lies in positioning any particular religion as THE TRUTH. This must mean that it is also wrong for parents to tell their children privately that 'their' religion is true.
I don't think lilbuddha said that but as a religious parent, I think that it would be a stupid parenting decision to portray my religion as the truth. Particularly if I want my children to believe it. Take my 12 year old, for instance. She is very smart and very very inclined to think for herself. If I told her X was the truth without proof, it would encourage her to doubt. Instead, I tell her what I believe to be the truth and encourage her to investigate it. So far that seems more persuasive to her, and certainly it is more honest! I cannot know there is a Christ anyway. I only know that I believe there is one, etc.
I have a hard time distinguishing between "I believe X" and "I believe X is true". Can you slip a knife between these two pavers for me?
It's been pretty clear to me that lilbuddha is only talking about what should be taught in state-schools, and even within that limited sphere, is only saying that no religion should be taught as being the truth, but that teaching about the various religions is fine.
I'm not sure how people are managing to interpret that as a "Soviet"-style viewpoint. The Soviets didn't present religions in a neutral fashion, they actively taught people to disbelieve them.
It would seem from lilbuddha's last post that the problem lies in positioning any particular religion as THE TRUTH. This must mean that it is also wrong for parents to tell their children privately that 'their' religion is true.
I don't think lilbuddha said that but as a religious parent, I think that it would be a stupid parenting decision to portray my religion as the truth. Particularly if I want my children to believe it. Take my 12 year old, for instance. She is very smart and very very inclined to think for herself. If I told her X was the truth without proof, it would encourage her to doubt. Instead, I tell her what I believe to be the truth and encourage her to investigate it. So far that seems more persuasive to her, and certainly it is more honest! I cannot know there is a Christ anyway. I only know that I believe there is one, etc.
I have a hard time distinguishing between "I believe X" and "I believe X is true". Can you slip a knife between these two pavers for me?
If one believes X, one by default believes it is true. It is in the allowance of doubt and the acknowledge that it is a belief rather than a concrete absolute that we distinguish believe to be true from THE TRUTH
I have a hard time distinguishing between "I believe X" and "I believe X is true". Can you slip a knife between these two pavers for me?
I think it's a pragmatic difference. (To me, I believe X is true, more strongly implies that somebody else first thought of X and then I became convinced of X; whereas I believe X doesn't commit oneself.)
However, if I read Gwai right the distinction she was making was between, X is true, and, I believe X is true. Which are also qualitatively equivalent but the second pragmatically implies that one has lesser warrant and more explicitly invites one to ask about one's reasons for belief.
It would seem from lilbuddha's last post that the problem lies in positioning any particular religion as THE TRUTH. This must mean that it is also wrong for parents to tell their children privately that 'their' religion is true.
I don't think lilbuddha said that but as a religious parent, I think that it would be a stupid parenting decision to portray my religion as the truth. Particularly if I want my children to believe it. Take my 12 year old, for instance. She is very smart and very very inclined to think for herself. If I told her X was the truth without proof, it would encourage her to doubt. Instead, I tell her what I believe to be the truth and encourage her to investigate it. So far that seems more persuasive to her, and certainly it is more honest! I cannot know there is a Christ anyway. I only know that I believe there is one, etc.
I have a hard time distinguishing between "I believe X" and "I believe X is true". Can you slip a knife between these two pavers for me?
As @lilbuddha said, I am trying to differentiate between telling my child "Jesus is the Christ" and "I believe Jesus is the Christ." Since I cannot prove it, I consider it more productive to be open about it being a belief more than a fact. Then when my children ask why I believe it, as they sometimes do, I can provide reasons without pretending that it's not faith.
I suppose with children it's different. On a place like the ship I assume it's the case whenever anybody says "x is true" they perforce mean "I believe X is true", unless they give supporting evidence. (Which incidentally is why someone, when challenged on an alleged fact, says "I'm not going to do your homework" I take it as tacit admission they are asserting as objective fact what is in fact merely a belief.)
Adults are not that different. experiment after experiment demonstrate that how something is presented weighs heavily on how it is evaluated. We like to think we are rational creatures, but we are not.
In one example that I have cited here before, an interviewer hears identically dressed, identical twins present the same information, with one presenting the negative first and the other the positive first.
The interviewer rated the one who presented the positive information first higher. Rationally, the order of the information would not matter.
All the participants were adults, BTW.
However, if I read Gwai right the distinction she was making was between, X is true, and, I believe X is true. Which are also qualitatively equivalent but the second pragmatically implies that one has lesser warrant and more explicitly invites one to ask about one's reasons for belief.
I believe Jesus Christ is God. I also believe that the theory of General Relativity describes the behaviour of gravity well (acknowledging that it doesn't work in the quantum limit). But the standard of proof I have for these two beliefs is very different. I can convince any reasonable listener to believe in General Relativity, but although I can supply supporting evidence that is consistent with my belief that Jesus Christ is God, I don't have the same standard of scientific evidence to support my belief.
@Leorning Cniht - I think we often overestimate the amount of "proof" we have for things like relativity. I couldn't do any experiments that prove it's true, nor understand the theoretical framework in which it forms an essential part. The best I can do is point you to books written by people who have (they say) proven it's true. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I do in fact believe that they are telling the truth. The vast vast vasty vast amount of what we know, we know by trust in authority/authorities.
@lilbuddha - I am constantly forgetting what ignorami humans are. I take the level of discussion here (well most of the time) as some kind of touchstone for human discourse in general. As you rightly point out, that's dangerous.
Those who take their religious beliefs seriously must be seekers after THE TRUTH.
If they are not then they are not taking their religion seriously.
Happy to accept, along with mousethief, that many many people are happy just to get on with their lives, to enjoy the company of friends etc and to leave the seeking after TRUTH to others.
Happy to accept that for many people the claims of competing religions or even the claims of any onereligion are baffling. They do, however, in many areas of the world form an important background to daily life.
Children see things in black and white. Parents try to introduce things to children in a somewhat protective way. If a parent believes that their religion is TRUE they will want to present that religion as TRUE. As a child grows to maturity the young person will make up his or her own mind.
@Leorning Cniht - I think we often overestimate the amount of "proof" we have for things like relativity. I couldn't do any experiments that prove it's true, nor understand the theoretical framework in which it forms an essential part.
Actually, "you" can do experiments to demonstrate the effect of general relativity. Here is an account of some measurements done 15 years ago by a somewhat unusual man with a family car full of clocks. (He spent a weekend up Mount Rainier with some atomic clocks. The clocks that went up the mountain gained about 20ns with respect to the clocks that he left at home. That's a direct measurement of gravitational time dilation.)
With fancier clocks, you can measure smaller changes, but the clocks he used are an off-the-shelf commodity.
But the standard of proof I have for these two beliefs is very different.
Everything one holds true about the world is a belief. I believe, looking out the window, that it is dark outside and night has fallen. However, under normal circumstances nobody would bother to say the words 'I believe' if they felt the words 'it is dark outside' were sufficient. Thus the words 'I believe' are a pragmatic signal that one does not think the stronger unadorned statement would be appropriate.
Those who take their religious beliefs seriously must be seekers after THE TRUTH.
In my use at least, the difference between the truth and THE TRUTH is not seriousness or even surety. One understands that it is belief and subjective, the other doesn't.
@Leorning Cniht - I think we often overestimate the amount of "proof" we have for things like relativity. I couldn't do any experiments that prove it's true, nor understand the theoretical framework in which it forms an essential part.
Actually, "you" can do experiments to demonstrate the effect of general relativity. Here is an account of some measurements done 15 years ago by a somewhat unusual man with a family car full of clocks. (He spent a weekend up Mount Rainier with some atomic clocks. The clocks that went up the mountain gained about 20ns with respect to the clocks that he left at home. That's a direct measurement of gravitational time dilation.)
With fancier clocks, you can measure smaller changes, but the clocks he used are an off-the-shelf commodity.
No, I cannot afford to buy clocks that keep time to the nanosecond. I must trust those who can. I could conceivably drive up Mt. Rainier; it's only 35 miles away as the crow flies. But those mountain roads become increasingly impassable as my acrophobia grows with my waistline.
But this is a distraction. Relativity is a scratch on the surface of all the things I have to take on authority. I cannot possibly perform home experiments on them all, and still be able to function with all of the other things I have going on.
No, I cannot afford to buy clocks that keep time to the nanosecond. I must trust those who can.
Well, true enough - most people don't drive around with $200K's worth of clocks and ancilliary support equipment in their car. Although you can probably rent the kit for a month or two for something on the scale of $10K - and if a dozen people chipped in $1K each, then it's doable by quite ordinary people, if they have sufficient motivation.
Relativity is a scratch on the surface of all the things I have to take on authority. I cannot possibly perform home experiments on them all, and still be able to function with all of the other things I have going on.
No, but I think there's a considerable difference between things that you take on authority because you have no possible way of evaluating their truth, and things that you, or any of the other people a bit like you, could test if necessary. I currently don't have a window within my line of sight. If my wife tells me it's snowing again, I'd believe her without looking out of the window, not just because she's a truthful person, but because she knows I could get up and look, and so a lie would be pointless.
We take science on authority because the claims can be tested and are tested by disparate groups with no sane reason to lie. We can see step on the foundations of the pyramid so believing the capstone is really there is not a great leap of faith even if we cannot touch it directly.
So, three more innocent people are butchered for the presidentially endorsed right to be offensive. Collateral damage for the highest moral principle I'm sure.
So, three more innocent people are butchered for the presidentially endorsed right to be offensive. Collateral damage for the highest moral principle I'm sure.
Well, since this latest assailant seems to have it in for Catholics as well as secular blaspemers, maybe going forward Catholics should stop whatever it is they're doing to offend wackjobs like him.
Even if that includes simply "saying mass for the faithful."
It's very interesting whether the theory of General Relativity is true or not, and how completely or partially that is so. However, it has very little bearing on how I - or for that matter everyone else apart from a few research physicists and astronomers - live our day-to-day lives. If Jesus rose from the dead - which I believe he did - and if he calls us to believe in him - which again, I believe he does - that has a direct bearing on my life, and, if those beliefs are true, yours and everyone else's.
Likewise, General Relativity is 100% irrelevant to how you bring up your children. In contrast, if you believe Jesus rose from the dead and calls us to believe in him, then if that means anything to you, you are going to want your children to believe too. Ultimately that is their responsibility but you will want to do whatever you can to encourage them to answer that call rather than refuse it.
I would add that having a faith that convinces you that you have a pat answer to everything and that brooks no questioning, in the way I think @Forthview implies by "THE TRUTH" is more likely to ensure that your children will reject your version of the Christian faith than accept it. It could also inhibit their ability to emerge from the adult end of adolescence with the existential tools an adult needs to live as a fully formed adult.
Forthview was unsure what lillbuddha meant by THE TRUTH as opposed to 'the truth' which she added later.
If I believe that something is true,then for me it is true.
At the same time I can also believe that for others they may well believe that something else is to their mind 'true'
Religious education in schools can indeed cause division in communities, but so can churches and religious faiths of all sorts, Not only religious outlooks but philosophical out looks can cause division also. As we tragically see in France,abandonment of religious views in public schools does not necessarily lead to harmony between different religious communities.
Unless we live in a state like the former German Democratic Republic where everything which might cause division in society came under the control of the Socialist Unity Party and that only what the Socialist Unity Party decreed might be said was said (They only allowed 'good news' in the newspaper) we have to accept that their are divisions in society. We have to accept that there are divisions in society,but we have to respect those,often sincerely held,views and work to bring them together in a search for THE TRUTH, as opposed to our own personal 'truth'. THE TRUTH we may only find on the Great Day of Judgement.
It's very interesting whether the theory of General Relativity is true or not, and how completely or partially that is so. However, it has very little bearing on how I - or for that matter everyone else apart from a few research physicists and astronomers - live our day-to-day lives. If Jesus rose from the dead - which I believe he did - and if he calls us to believe in him - which again, I believe he does - that has a direct bearing on my life, and, if those beliefs are true, yours and everyone else's.
Likewise, General Relativity is 100% irrelevant to how you bring up your children. In contrast, if you believe Jesus rose from the dead and calls us to believe in him, then if that means anything to you, you are going to want your children to believe too. Ultimately that is their responsibility but you will want to do whatever you can to encourage them to answer that call rather than refuse it.
I would add that having a faith that convinces you that you have a pat answer to everything and that brooks no questioning, in the way I think @Forthview implies by "THE TRUTH" is more likely to ensure that your children will reject your version of the Christian faith than accept it. It could also inhibit their ability to emerge from the adult end of adolescence with the existential tools an adult needs to live as a fully formed adult.
Why does it work with all other religion, but not Christianity?
Comments
And still susceptible to the same issues that religion brings.
To nutshell it...
I think lilbuddha would support a lesson like "The Catholic Church taught that good works were neccessary for salvation, but Luther disagreed with that."
Lilbuddha would not support a lesson like "The Catholics were wrong to teach that good works were neccessary for salvation but, praise the Lord, we had Luther come along to lead the world back to truth."
Yeah, I was gonna throw in something about the long-term sociopolitical impact etc of that dispute, but I wanted to keep it brief.
A good number of non-Catholics will apply including many Muslims. State funded Catholic schools are obliged to make suitable arrangements for those educated in such schools who are not Catholic.
We have to look to the future but there is a certain amount of truth in what would have been said many years ago that Catholic schools were transferred over 100 years ago into state hands simply to keep the low class Catholics away from the better class of Protestants who would have attended the 'non-denominational' schools. This has all changed certainly within the last 50 years.
My main point for lilbuddha is that certainly these schools are state sponsored but are responding to a desire on the part of parents, not enforcement on the part of the state.
Approximately 20% of Scottish schools are Catholic schools. The percentage of those in France who voluntarily opt for Catholic schools in France is approximately the same.
A mature society should be able to accept within it people of diverse views and outlooks.
Not much of a tangent I think.
Re First Nations. The recent push in education and societal awareness are about trying to balance the traditionally taught history from the perspective of the "colonists" and "settlers" with the history of the people who were in Canada's territory before they showed up, and after with the difficult interactions- theft of land, forced on to small reserves of land, pass laws like South Africa's apartheid regime, taking children away from families to eradicate the culture and language, taking children and adopting them against the wishes of their parents. That sort of thing.
Three things. They've had massive reviews of education by large groups of stakeholders, and the review is ongoing to ensure information is provided in as factual ways as possible. Second, that most of Canada's people are actually immigrants themselves or children of immigrants. Thus understanding of the racism, structural and systemic has also included this understanding re most of the immigrants are non-white. Third, it is not a persecution of the settler-colonist people. It's about "truth and reconciliation". It is messy, conflictual and difficult. Parts of it offend.
The problem is still presenting a religion as the default. All sarcasm aside, recent events suggest we do not have a mature society. And, again, one group* being the default still suggests that it is the correct one. Everyone being welcome to hear how one religion is the best is not quite the same thing as accepting diverse views.
*Despite the sectarian animosity, Catholics and protestants are still all Christians.
Is it possible to 'accept diverse views' if we have no views of our own to compare these 'diverse views' with ? What is the purpose of discussing 'diverse views' if one has no 'diverse views' to discuss.
I have no difficulty personally in hearing 'diverse views' I welcome them but I am also happy to be grounded in my own views and be able to compare and contrast the views of others.
I spoke about sectarian problems of long ago of which as a child I was very aware but I am glad that things have moved on and I am happy to affirm that Catholics and Protestants are Christians, just as I am glad to affirm that Christians, Jews ,Muslims,Hindus, Agnostics and Atheists etc.are all human beings.
I agree entirely with lilbuddha that we do not always seem to have a mature society but I do not think that that should stop us from trying to create a more mature society, accepting a diversity of creed, colour, language, sexuality and interests etc.
That's because you and NP share a conviction that there should be one compulsory state curriculum taught in all schools, and that all formal education happens in schools. If you don't share that conviction, then "formal education" and "state curriculum" are not even slightly the same thing.
If what you mean is "there should be a single national curriculum that all schools should be forced to use, and it should not include religion" then say that.
I'm not clear on whether you think that schools with some sort of religious foundation should be allowed to exist at all, and if so, whether those schools should be able to teach about religion in addition to your compulsory curriculum. If what you want to say is "all children should be forced to attend government schools that should not teach about religion" then it would be clearer to say so.
Removing religion from schools is not the antithesis of acceptance, but closer to the promotion of it.
BTW, "Forced to attend" is such a bloody loaded term and useless to actually discussion. Children currently face compulsory education, regardless of whether the school is religious.
We have tax-funded school systems here. One is Roman Catholic because of the historical French catholic fact of Canada when the province was created in 1905: it's part of the constitution. The other was originally thought of protestant, but is fully secular presently. It also must follow the provincial curriculum also. The RC schools are allowed to teach "Christian ethics". When you pay education tax, you must attest to being of the faith community to direct your payment to it. However, the provincial gov't overrode the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has allowed non-RC children to attend RC schools and their parents to pay tax to RC. Our rural situation is complicated re distances to schools and school closures due to depopulation, and the gov't has noted (election yesterday) that a right wing extreme party "Buffalo Party" (renamed from Wexit) is second place in some parts of Saskatchewan. The Buffalo people are extreme in all the usual ways.
Back to provincial curriculum: it avoids things like very stressful uniform final exams for university entrance.
re the thing which brought us this thread, here's an opinion by Shamil Shams from Deutsche Welle (the German equivalent to the BBC, CBC, ABC (Australian)): https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-erdogan-and-khan-are-hypocritical-about-macrons-france/a-55408436
"Erdogan and Khan [Muslims in general?] have no right to talk about "Islamophobia" when their governments show no respect to people of other faiths." ergo what level of "give" should western countries have to Muslim sensibilities? Which also shows that Muslims are "other" and outsiders to European countries.
The Muslims in Germany are not responsible for the behaviour of Imran Khan and Tayip Erdogan. We recognise holding people collectively responsible for the evil it is in other cases.
Which is how the Reformation was taught to me more than 55 years ago (save that rather than "effected" we were taught "affected").
But does this not imply that "religion" is an inessential add-on and that the "default" position is to exclude it?
Is it, though? Most religion, it seems to me, is social.
By extension it would mean that it is wrong for parents to delegate that 'positioning of a particular religion' to any formally organised religious body and to send children to church, just as NPNP's mother did long ago with him.
Certainly in Europe,even where there are 'state' churches (Nordic countries and Greece)
and countries like Germany where there are a number of religious communities where money is in-gathered by church taxes for the use of the churches,no-one is obliged to accept that what any of these churches may teach is THE TRUTH. The state may,however see it as a useful help towards social cohesion if religious bodies are given help with the taxes which the individual members of the state have paid
As another poster said to me we are all aware that we are seeking THE TRUTH,but we find it in different ways.
Religion,like many things, can mean different things to different people.
It can be a deeply personal thing in the relationship between an individual and God
It can be,as Arethosemyfeet has said, a social thing with people feeling a part of a particular community and rejoicing in the company of like minded people ( as well as enjoying the opportunity to discuss with those who are not of the same mind).
lilbuddha's ideas remind me of the Soviet Union which in principle allowed freedom of religious worship and freedom of atheistic propaganda. If the State allowed it ,churches could remain open and religious worship take place as long as they didn't say anything apart from liturgy and as long as they did not send their children to church or have them baptised.
I demur. There are plenty of people I know who aren't interested in THE TRUTH at all, just in living their lives, enjoying the company of friends and family, putting food on the table, and so on. If they think about THE TRUTH at all, it's as something that bothers other people, whatever, if it works for them, etc.
Yes. The idea of the truth sounds to me like some adolescent pursuit. How can such an abstraction lead anywhere?
My, now very ancient, doctoral research was about how parents are provoked in mid-life to question themselves because their children in adolescence are sorting out their identity issues. I don't think Erik Erikson's stages of development and the ideas of "identity crisis" are thought of much any more, but I do find the stages of development having application in longitudinal lifespan studies very interesting. Stuff like the 75 year Grant Study and George Vaillant's writings about. It began in the years 1940-45.
The UK "Up series" of programs is another version of this type of study: I agree with the Wikipedia note: 28-Up is the best of the series. It began in 1964.
I have a hard time distinguishing between "I believe X" and "I believe X is true". Can you slip a knife between these two pavers for me?
I'm not sure how people are managing to interpret that as a "Soviet"-style viewpoint. The Soviets didn't present religions in a neutral fashion, they actively taught people to disbelieve them.
However, if I read Gwai right the distinction she was making was between, X is true, and, I believe X is true. Which are also qualitatively equivalent but the second pragmatically implies that one has lesser warrant and more explicitly invites one to ask about one's reasons for belief.
As @lilbuddha said, I am trying to differentiate between telling my child "Jesus is the Christ" and "I believe Jesus is the Christ." Since I cannot prove it, I consider it more productive to be open about it being a belief more than a fact. Then when my children ask why I believe it, as they sometimes do, I can provide reasons without pretending that it's not faith.
In one example that I have cited here before, an interviewer hears identically dressed, identical twins present the same information, with one presenting the negative first and the other the positive first.
The interviewer rated the one who presented the positive information first higher. Rationally, the order of the information would not matter.
All the participants were adults, BTW.
I believe Jesus Christ is God. I also believe that the theory of General Relativity describes the behaviour of gravity well (acknowledging that it doesn't work in the quantum limit). But the standard of proof I have for these two beliefs is very different. I can convince any reasonable listener to believe in General Relativity, but although I can supply supporting evidence that is consistent with my belief that Jesus Christ is God, I don't have the same standard of scientific evidence to support my belief.
@lilbuddha - I am constantly forgetting what ignorami humans are. I take the level of discussion here (well most of the time) as some kind of touchstone for human discourse in general. As you rightly point out, that's dangerous.
If they are not then they are not taking their religion seriously.
Happy to accept, along with mousethief, that many many people are happy just to get on with their lives, to enjoy the company of friends etc and to leave the seeking after TRUTH to others.
Happy to accept that for many people the claims of competing religions or even the claims of any onereligion are baffling. They do, however, in many areas of the world form an important background to daily life.
Children see things in black and white. Parents try to introduce things to children in a somewhat protective way. If a parent believes that their religion is TRUE they will want to present that religion as TRUE. As a child grows to maturity the young person will make up his or her own mind.
Actually, "you" can do experiments to demonstrate the effect of general relativity. Here is an account of some measurements done 15 years ago by a somewhat unusual man with a family car full of clocks. (He spent a weekend up Mount Rainier with some atomic clocks. The clocks that went up the mountain gained about 20ns with respect to the clocks that he left at home. That's a direct measurement of gravitational time dilation.)
With fancier clocks, you can measure smaller changes, but the clocks he used are an off-the-shelf commodity.
is not seriousness or even surety. One understands that it is belief and subjective, the other doesn't.
No, I cannot afford to buy clocks that keep time to the nanosecond. I must trust those who can. I could conceivably drive up Mt. Rainier; it's only 35 miles away as the crow flies. But those mountain roads become increasingly impassable as my acrophobia grows with my waistline.
But this is a distraction. Relativity is a scratch on the surface of all the things I have to take on authority. I cannot possibly perform home experiments on them all, and still be able to function with all of the other things I have going on.
Well, true enough - most people don't drive around with $200K's worth of clocks and ancilliary support equipment in their car. Although you can probably rent the kit for a month or two for something on the scale of $10K - and if a dozen people chipped in $1K each, then it's doable by quite ordinary people, if they have sufficient motivation.
No, but I think there's a considerable difference between things that you take on authority because you have no possible way of evaluating their truth, and things that you, or any of the other people a bit like you, could test if necessary. I currently don't have a window within my line of sight. If my wife tells me it's snowing again, I'd believe her without looking out of the window, not just because she's a truthful person, but because she knows I could get up and look, and so a lie would be pointless.
Well, since this latest assailant seems to have it in for Catholics as well as secular blaspemers, maybe going forward Catholics should stop whatever it is they're doing to offend wackjobs like him.
Even if that includes simply "saying mass for the faithful."
Likewise, General Relativity is 100% irrelevant to how you bring up your children. In contrast, if you believe Jesus rose from the dead and calls us to believe in him, then if that means anything to you, you are going to want your children to believe too. Ultimately that is their responsibility but you will want to do whatever you can to encourage them to answer that call rather than refuse it.
I would add that having a faith that convinces you that you have a pat answer to everything and that brooks no questioning, in the way I think @Forthview implies by "THE TRUTH" is more likely to ensure that your children will reject your version of the Christian faith than accept it. It could also inhibit their ability to emerge from the adult end of adolescence with the existential tools an adult needs to live as a fully formed adult.
If I believe that something is true,then for me it is true.
At the same time I can also believe that for others they may well believe that something else is to their mind 'true'
Religious education in schools can indeed cause division in communities, but so can churches and religious faiths of all sorts, Not only religious outlooks but philosophical out looks can cause division also. As we tragically see in France,abandonment of religious views in public schools does not necessarily lead to harmony between different religious communities.
Unless we live in a state like the former German Democratic Republic where everything which might cause division in society came under the control of the Socialist Unity Party and that only what the Socialist Unity Party decreed might be said was said (They only allowed 'good news' in the newspaper) we have to accept that their are divisions in society. We have to accept that there are divisions in society,but we have to respect those,often sincerely held,views and work to bring them together in a search for THE TRUTH, as opposed to our own personal 'truth'. THE TRUTH we may only find on the Great Day of Judgement.
Why does it work with all other religion, but not Christianity?