It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Richard Dawkins interested in setting up 'atheist free school'

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Richard Dawkins interested in setting up 'atheist free school'


www.telegraph.co.uk

The author of The God Delusion, who has previously described religious education provided by faith schools as a form of child abuse, said he would want pupils to be taught to be skeptical and to appreciate the value of evidence rather than receive “indoctrination” about atheism.

He also said that his “free-thinking school” would provide lessons about the gods of ancient Greece and Norse legend, and would treat the Bible as a work of literature rather than a basis for morality.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mods moved it to this board not me.




[edit on 28-6-2010 by zaiger]




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I would love to see how this pans out if it happens. Considering that public school is already free of religion and secular i wonder what would make this school so different? He calims that he would not be indoctrinating children but kinda contradicts himself with


“If children understand that beliefs should be substantiated with evidence, as opposed to tradition, authority, revelation or faith, they will automatically work out for themselves that they are atheists


This will be pretty funny to watch as he also says that he would have the bible and the books of other religions in his school but they would be taught "without bias" and as fiction. For someone that makes the claim of raising children with religion is child abuse he really has no problem indoctrinating kids with his belief system. Kind of like saying
"whoa im not teachin kids white supremacy, im just teaching them how every other race is inferior"

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I agree, I fail to understand the point since it's already not allowed in public schools. More power to him to set up a private school though where people can send their kids who support his thinking. I honestly think that everyone will be athiests or some form of it in 200 years anyway. Science will have explained everything to a point where theirs no doubt.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Teaching we have no hard proof of God is fact. Teaching God does not exist is a theory.

It could also be said the idea that God does exist is a theory. Dawkins essentially wants to teach a religion of 'non-religion' to people.

I hate to use the popular internet meme but....FAIL.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
[edit on 28-6-2010 by darkbake]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
I agree, I fail to understand the point since it's already not allowed in public schools. More power to him to set up a private school though where people can send their kids who support his thinking. I honestly think that everyone will be athiests or some form of it in 200 years anyway. Science will have explained everything to a point where theirs no doubt.


Ha ha ha. You are assuming that science will point us in the direction of no spirituality, when in fact the truth is just the opposite.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I believe science classes are for science, and evolution should be taught in a SCIENCE class.

If you want religion in school, it should be taught in a separate religion/philosophy class. Many schools have "religion" classes, but all they discuss is Christianity.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake

Ha ha ha. You are assuming that science will point us in the direction of no spirituality, when in fact the truth is just the opposite.


I think science will prove there is no God. I think it will prove that no 'Gods' exist which is the very definition of atheism. I said nothing about spirituality.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger

This will be pretty funny to watch as he also says that he would have the bible and the books of other religions in his school but they would be taught "without bias" and as fiction. For someone that makes the claim of raising children with religion is child abuse he really has no problem indoctrinating kids with his belief system. Kind of like saying
"whoa im not teachin kids white supremacy, im just teaching them how every other race is inferior"


What exactly is his belief system? Atheism isn't a belief system, it's a lack of belief in deities. The article clearly states that he "wants pupils to be taught to be skeptical and appreciate the value of evidence" which is hardly indoctrination; it's called using logic and reason to form your own opinions on the evidence (which religions do not rely upon, but rather they rely upon faith). Nice try on the spin, though.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I wonder how this would really work out in practise.

I'm pretty much an atheist, not a hardliner, I'm open, I just don't think it's likely, and generally take a line of "proof please".

I'm worried though that this could end up being too doctrinal though, a rather extreme reaction against such things as faith schools. Dawkins himself has said how he hates the idea of children being described as a "Christian child", and I agree with him, that it's as silly as calling a child a "Marxist child" or "Capitalist child".

I'd hate for this to go to far and end with people having a so called "Atheist child".

I think it's just better to push for more balance in regular schools that haven't caught up yet. My school used to teach Christianity as fact, but over the years that got much better, now they teach Religious Education as more of an academic subject anyway, and don't push ideas onto people.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Considering that public school is already free of religion and secular


No they’re not, all schools must, by law, carry out at least one act of collective worship a day. A teacher in Newcastle (IIRC) tried to set up a secular school a few years ago but was not allowed.

It should also be noted that a third of all public schools are faith schools.


[edit on 28-6-2010 by Mike_A]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by VintageEnvy

Originally posted by darkbake

Ha ha ha. You are assuming that science will point us in the direction of no spirituality, when in fact the truth is just the opposite.


I think science will prove there is no God. I think it will prove that no 'Gods' exist which is the very definition of atheism. I said nothing about spirituality.


I don't think this can ever happen, on the idea of "Proving a negative".

We see it all the time really, as soon as people started getting pretty confident on stuff like "Big Bang" theories and so on, we move onto the next step, and say "OK, so what caused that?". I think there will always be room for a so called "God of the gaps".



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DisappearCompletely
 




The article clearly states that he "wants pupils to be taught to be skeptical and appreciate the value of evidence" which is hardly indoctrination


Call it what you want. When christians convert people they call it "saving" when a new age religion converts people it gets called "recruiting" and when atheists do it they call it educating. No matter what they all have the same thing in common, they say "the other guy is wrong and stupid but if you listen to us and think as we do then you will be a better person". So instead of taking part of the day to teach children humanitarian efforts or anything which could be viewed as good, they will be used as pawns and indoctrinated with reasons why some rleigion is wrong. Public schools just stay away from religion all together and get along just fine, it is simple no religion in schools. So dawkins here wants to put religion in school only to bash it, kind of a pointless method of education if you ask me. History,English,science and math in which class does ridiculing the bible help?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


No where in the article did it say he wanted to incorporate religious study so it can simply be trashed and bashed. So how is treating the bible and other religious texts as "literature rather than a basis of morality" bashing them? Now you're telling me that teaching people to base their own opinions from their own deductive reasoning is somehow indoctrination?

Yeah, I'm sure the curriculum will consist of students sitting around in class all day burning bibles while worshiping the non-existence of deities. Give me a break.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by VintageEnvy
 


I wouldn't put so much faith in science (hey that's kind of ironic). Anyway science is mostly objective in the Western thought of cause and effect. Because of x the result is y. Unfortunately not everything in life is cause and effect especially the subjective, or the inner workings of our own mind, much which science has a bigger difficulty of explaining. Especially since most of it is not observable and cannot be recorded as data. I'm reading a psychological book called Synchronicities: The Story of Our Lives and it is really fascinating because it focuses on this very issue.

Not all of our life can be explained in a cause an effect way (the idea of free will, which Catholicism is famous for endorsing). It has really opened me up to the idea of predestination in the way that sometimes in our lives we have no control over anything or little understanding of why such an event has occurred in our lives.

Richard Dawkins and others like him have a very objective scientific mind, it's that old fight between the Rational thoughts of the Enlightenment period and the Irrational or Abstract thoughts of Romanticism and Faith.

I wonder if he would include the arts in his school?

[edit on 28-6-2010 by asmall89]

[edit on 28-6-2010 by asmall89]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DisappearCompletely
 




Now you're telling me that teaching people to base their own opinions from their own deductive reasoning is somehow indoctrination?


Teaching people how to base their own opinions is indoctrination, if they were really free to have their own opinions they would not need to be indoctrinated on how to get them.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I think teaching children to look for evidence to substantiate any belief is a good start.

Personally I think teaching them that facts don't exist, therefore all belief is unfounded is better.

Atheism says there is no god, other people say there is - I say - neither group can prove anything.

Facts - even those physical objects we can hold in our hands do not represent facts - they are simply our interpretation of electrical signals sent to our brains by our senses.

Truth exists in the same realm as god - in the realm of possibility, or intuition, or fantasy.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
there is as much evidence in religious scriptures then in Dawkin's studies.

What makes Dawkins teachings different is the only fact that he writes in a laps of time in the earth evolution where he is free to express his thought and can open his point of view to others without being shot or killed or almost and the faith he fights again is the faith based on false or hidden evidence. This evidence was written in a time where dogmatic cults where prosecuting anyone who revealed what ever could attempt to the dogma and still today the Vatican fights verbally against masonry, the Islam fights by killing just anyone who attempts to deny there dogma and more recently anyone who does not believe in it and the worth in all that, 2000 years later we have not learned anything.
The scripture today will tell you in words and images how a child becomes, how to procreate and what process is going on from day of insemination to birth. 2000 years ago and much later, even until 300 years ago, that was a hidden secret and tabu sentenced to death by the clerical powers and you had to give this back in hidden text, coded between the lines in a story of cabbage and storks.

Imagine the delusion of all if one day they find out that there faith was based on stories that buddhists, hinduists, taoists and yoga teachers communicate to you in a clear readable and understandable text.

But, as long as we keep the Santa Claus, the cabbage and storks stories going on, we will not change anything.

On the other side, i do not like Dawkin's arrogance in relation to some ancient teachings. Dawkin has no idea about symbolism and no feeling for it and just as any Muslim will never accept anything different then Allah and Mohamad, Dawkin will only see with blind faith evidence, Darwin's evidence and his one while anyone intelligent knows that Darwin's evidence is pending and much of it is stupid.

A right turning DNA coil will never become a left turning one, not even by evolution. To do that you need to create a different being and that is what differs the left turning human DNA form all other organisms that turn right, the Ape included.

Everything in universe evolutes and adapts to it's environment over time, only Muslims and Dawkin seem to resist to that evidence.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Honestly I'm against a lot of the religious segregation that goes on in our schools. You should be at school to learn topics like history (so we dont continually repeat it) math, language arts etc. If you want religion go to church plain and simple.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Anyone who argues that a religious belief that is rooted more in the mind than anywhere as either truth or false is missing the point. You can NEVER prove that any "belief" that has no roots in the material world is valid or not. I will give you an example....


I am picturing a tree... it has gray leaves with a red trunk. I believe it exists.


Prove it doesn't.

It is impossible to my understanding as has been a bane of a philisophical problem.

I cant prove that it exists either. Even if you COULD see it too. Where would it be? Weird.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join