[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTepA-WV_oE"]YouTube - Dan Dennett: A secular, scientific rebuttal to Rick Warren[/ame] Philosopher Dan Dennett calls for religion -- all religion -- to be taught in schools, so we can understand its nature as a natural phenomenon. Then he takes on The Purpose-Driven Life, disputing its claim that, to be moral, one must deny evolution. I think Dan is correct, what do you think?
Could be, if he´s talking about a general view of what religions preach and what they stand for and stuff. But not for practicing them in school or something. The idea is a bit vulnerable to religious teachers or teachers with agendas, it´s kind of a touchy subject. I think I prefer it stay at home.
Sorry, I don't have the time to watch the whole video right now, but I agree with Santa. I'm an atheist who strongly believes in the complete separation of church and state, but I think understanding religion is very important, especially in today's world. I just finished an ancient history course in college, and I was surprise to see how much of the class was dedicated to religions. There was a good reason for this, much of our history has been greatly influenced by religion. I didn't really watch much of the video, but from what you said about religion as a natural phenomenon I assume Santa talks about religion and the reason it exists. I have always been curious about what makes people cling to religion, almost as if it's programed into our brains to need it. When people do not have religion they seem to create it. That's what happened with Buddhism at least. Buddhism started out simply as a philosophy with no spiritual elements. It was not until much later people made it a religion. Anyway, TED has some great video's. Good find.
OK I saw the video and I liked the idea about teaching the history and facts about different religions. Although there are loads of different religions, maybe he´s just talking about the main ones and the ones that still exist today. I still think it could be very vulnerable to religious teachers. It needs an objective person to teach the class or it will simply make the kids lean towards the beliefs of whoever is teaching them. Religion is a touchy subject.
Well the idea is with him, if the cow is subject to evolutionary design, so is religion. This is true, religions are a evolution of themselves over large vast stretches of land. He just want the facts taught about ALL the religions, and not give an agenda to them so people can learn from a historical standpoint what each major religion meant. I actually took a very minor elective(only had the class for a week) in my high school(public) that did this in fact The oddest thing to the teacher was it was the most popular class and even the right wing christian kids loved it. The teacher although may be touchy to you guys allowed us to debate freely about there implications. The worst thing about the class was it only spanned 1 week, 5 days of 45 minute segments that really most of us could of had for long time. I think what most religious people are afraid of is the religion falling subject to what other things already taught of humanities, being spoken of and openly accepted as myths. That is to strong for any religious person to believe. Also the atheist does not like this because it might actually get people openly talking about religion and therefore more people might want to learn about it this way. I think allowing this kind of schooling would open more people up to the study of arts that gets children to enjoy schooling really. The arts on all levels needs to be embraced and religion is an art by definition, and all forms of the arts should be endorsed openly in schools. Of course there are guidelines that would be in place, but in an open setting like this, kids are easy to point out when they do not agree with something should it be deemed unfit for there learning. This has to do with biology with cutting open a frog, some people of course will find this as repulsing and a damnation that they should have to do this. Most will be ok and will actually embrace it and see it as it is, an important and intuitive way at learning the mechanics of life.
It´s not touchy for us as a country, it´s just that religion is like politics, some people don´t like it when you argue against their beliefs, even if your only talking and not trying to convince anyone. I like talking about religion and seeing what people think and stuff, but there are people who just won´t listen to anything you say if you don´t agree with them 100%.
All religions and even politics for that matter require you to be submissive to there ideas, the people that argue against religion are either people embracing that idea overtly or not allowing them to be subjected to that idea at all under some kind of proud allegiance to there own(in there own minds) more profound idea. Those are the thoughts of morons, because only morons would not want to know about something with such historical relevance and other humanities.
Well, my original high school had greek and egyptian mythology classes, and obviously no one who firmly believes in those dogmas is going to be taken seriously. Planting Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. into that same sort of objective analysis could definitely help to discourage people from taking them seriously. Of course, it's also ripe for being perverted by the believers who take/teach these classes, but it would still do more harm than good. Especially as long as history students are being exposed to the horrors of communism and nazism, why not do the same for other dogmas?
Wait a second, are you calling me a moron? Or close minded people? When I talk about religion I mostly argue against like the Vatican deciding everything or something, mostly about how institutionalized they are, and quite enjoy learning about religions I don´t know about, or any other subject for that matter. You can´t really argue against someone´s faith though.
I was calling the people who are closed to ideas for the fact of being "politically correct" although they have an agenda.
Couldn't have said it better. The christains will love this because they will think it will make people turn to them, and at the same time our youth would be learning about the overall shallowness of organized religion and why its existance is due only to a psycological need.
That is not the meaning of this class and will never be it's intent, if this is what it aims at doing it will never happen. It is not to show religions superstitions but it historical relevance. You guys with your own dogmas would be just as detrimental to this course as a christian nut teaching the class.
It should be mandatory, just as chemistry, world history, etc. If it was an elective, only people who are interested about religion would take the class, and you would be missing the entire point of the video.
I think learning of the different religions, present and past, is very important. Up until recently, religion have to a large extent been the framework upon which cultures and political structures grew. In light of the ever increasing interaction over cultural borders, receiving an at least rudimentary education of what religious history and roots the world cultures have, should be mandatory. As part of a larger and more integrated History, Religion and Philosophy class. The problem ofcourse is delivering this in an as factual and neutral manner as possible. The pitfalls are many, especially when the subject is ones one cultures religious history and tenets.
No, I"m sorry, I cannot condone the instruction of religion as mandatory in public schools. That violates the separation between church and state, since public schools are run by the states. As an elective and non-partisan, I can see classes on world religions being taught, but you absolutely cannot make it it mandatory, regardless of your personal beliefs, it violates the constitution of these United States.
I think you've misunderstood wildwill, we're not talking about instruction in religion. Like in indoctrinating the little children to becoming little believers. That job misguided parents and poaching religious organizations can do on their own time and with their own money. It's about learning the history of religions and the enviroment in which they was invented and later grew and with a few exceptions we're still struggling with, eventually died. How they have influenced society in the past and present. What all the religions have thought as gospel truth regarding rituals, cosmological outlook, metaphysic dogmas, moral tenets and so on.
In my humanities courses I learned about the ancient pagan and greek myths, which tied in as a religious course. Were my separation of church and state rights broken?
Religion has no place in public schools cause it's for the birds. Fuck a bunch of funky-ass religion.