Should we be teaching counter-religion in public schools?

Question

Had to phrase this for those who don't bother to read the full question.
The religion-in-school debate has alwas been about whether religious fundamentalists have the right to force their beliefs on the children of non-religious parents. Richard Dawkins, in his new book The God Delusion, suggests that just keeping religion out of schools isn't enough. There are kids who grow up believing that the universe is 6000 years old and that all scientists who say otherwise are lying. Some of these kids may be running the country someday (one of them is right now).
At what point does this indocrination become a form of child abuse? These parents raise their children with a set of beliefs about the world that actually leave them intellectually crippled for life.
Now, I agree with Dawkins that if the only way to end this cycle of fundamentalist indoctrination is with a Chinese-style authoritarian regime, then the cure is worse than the disease. I'm just saying, it's worth some thought.

Answer 1

I am astounded that they allow 'creationism' to be taught at all. Completely fictitious moronic fairytale being taught to impressionable children.....nauseating!

Answer 2

I read your previous question, and chose not to answer it, although in general I believe that religion could be like any other content for teaching analytical skills, etc.

As far as this question, though, I think you're forgetting the status of the "knowledge" that we teach in schools. Scientific knowledge in general is not a set of established facts, but rather a collection of hypotheses that haven't been disproved yet. While some of these hypotheses have been supported again and again, there is always the possibility that a new hypothesis will come along that explains the data in an even better way. And not being open to these ideas would be poor science -- scientists who hold to outdated theories get left behind.

Therefore, since all scientific knowledge is actually just a set of beliefs, there is not really that much difference between science and religion. In fact, for me, science and religion really have similar purposes -- discovering truth. It's just that they do this by different means.

Therefore, I have no problem with teaching children to question and think logically about their beliefs of all kinds (those they learn through religious means, and those they learn in school). But we should not tell them which beliefs we think they should believe or not. Otherwise, teachers would be guilty of the same kind of indoctrination you are accusing parents of in your question.

Answer 3

This is a very interesting question. I grew up in public school and though we didn't have religious classes we did have lots of religious-ish and patriotic songs in our music classes (all five years of elementary.) That is just a small example, but it somehow became a part of my culture to accept Christmas songs, and follow Halloween, Easter, etc. traditions along with others, though none of these are celebrated in my own religion.

That was school. But at home, my parents taught me the differences between our religion and the things we were exposed to outside with the logistics. Why don't we do things the same way, and how it's okay for everyone to have their own beliefs. And they never were ones to force their beliefs down my throat, so growing up I had a real choice and a real exposure to all kinds of people from all different backgrounds. I ended up choosing what made most sense to me.

Now, about religion in schools - since this country isn't based on any specific religion (but has had Christian leaders, and a mostly Christian background,) I think it's fair to leave religion out of the schools unless EVERY religion/non-religion and every belief is taught without bias. I know that's close to impossible, so religion should be left to the parents. That's what I believe and I think it's more healthy. People should definitely remain open-minded regardless - that's the most important thing! :)

Answer 4

What Richard Dawkins says is to teach the children just the facts until they're old enough to make up their minds. Yes this does mean keeping religion away from children but that is a good thing as what Richard Dawkins proposes is that when they children know all the facts they can then make up their own minds based only upon the facts and not based upon their parent's blind faith. But theists don't like this because they know that based only on facts atheism wins every time. And I agree with him. Say no to jesus especially in schools.

Answer 5

I caught some dude on the religious channel saying 1+1=3. Now I know he wasn't being literal, but what about a kid who sees that and goes to school next day, spouting this information? There should be classes that study religion (all religion) and the effects that that it has on the world.

Answer 6

We are all limited by and supported by our current cultural and whatever else dogmas of our time. Science too.

Religion is for churches

Science and freedom of thought for schools

Religious schools might have issues

other ones shouldn't

I think its weird that as an atheist I know the lords prayer since I had to say it as a kid. Its a nice prayer I think. It doesn't belong in school though. What if I was Jewish or something?

Answer 7

You know, Isaac Newton and Leonardo DaVinci and Galileo and Kepler and countless other classical scientists were all 'indoctrinated' with these religious concepts. Oxford, Cambridge and european institutions of higher learning and the centers of scientific advancement, and later the Ivy league institutions of the US were established as religious colleges.

The concept that a child who learns the biblical creation story will be intellectually crippled and/or is being abused is simple nonsense. Teaching a child that his great-great-great...great grandfather was a special creation of God does far more to establish a good and healthly self-esteem of the child than telling him his great-great-great...great grandfather was a chimpanzee.

So tell me true....who's really guilty of child abuse here?

Answer 8

A Christian is not a person who denies the truth, but one who embraces it. That is not to say that people cannot hold onto certain beliefs, but rather that they understand the whole arguement and not just throw things out senslessly.

Answer 9

The USSR and China could not end religion. Dawkins is presumptuous to imply that this is necessary and you are presumptuous for believing what he has to say.

Answer 10

Just teach both science and religion. The choice is in their hands whether they believe on Bible or Science textbook.