ybgirp wrote:
"...it is not possible for a mind that believes in supernatural, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent supermen in the sky, to ‘meet’ with a mind that rejects such infantile notions."

Pardon me, ybgirp, but you do sound rather paternalistic when you say that, perhaps even a tad elitist and undemocratic. Don't you think your approach could be seen to be somewhat insulting to those who have a different point of view?

ybgirp

You talk about the meeting of the minds. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga said that demonstrating the existence or otherwise of God is comparable to defending the existence of your mind. How can I be sure that your mind exists? I can see and touch your body but the mind is something else. (I presume you would defend the existence of your mind.) To see evidence of the mind we need to look by inference at things such as planning, purpose, intelligence, communication, etc. To ‘see’ God you need to look for such things, and many claim to see such evidence for God in history, the sciences, the created order in the universe, its beauty and wonder, and God’s ability to communicate and affect our daily lives (though Plantinga could argue it better than me.)

What do I mean by teaching atheism? If I wanted my kids to believe in atheism, I would try my hardest to ignore God, probably deny His existence if the subject ever came up (and it inevitably would), and consign belief in him to the ignorant or mentally unstable. Very importantly, I would need to come up with an atheistic creation myth, in order to be able to explain our existence, how the world just popped into being, because the natural order begs for an explanation. Darwin’s ideas and related explanations have been filling this intellectual void for a while despite their counter-intuitivism and inability to convince the population at large. And I would buy lots of books from carefully selected authors and pay homage to the High Priest of Atheism – the right honourable Richard Dawkins himself.

This is what I mean by teaching atheism. The Russians and many neighbouring countries tried it in their education systems for most of last century but I think they’re starting to give it up as a lost cause.

continued …

Christianity is based on the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. His teachings are contained in the writings of the Gospels. If you’d like to call these writings and others associated with them ‘myths and legends’, then fine. But they have been heavily scrutinised, even on a daily basis, by eminent scholars. The conclusions of which, I think, are worthy of sharing with our kids.

TR

You say comparative religion classes are a good idea and should be taught even in single religion schools. I am no expert on what is taught in every school around the country but, in my experience, this kind of thing often happens in private schools. For example, my wife tells me that in her Anglican girls’ school where they had regular religious education, she also learned about other religions. I could give other examples.

You said the default setting for the human mind should be disbelief. I agree that heavy doses of scepticism are healthy for the mind. Blindly believing anything is bad. However, much of religion, even in single religion schools, is not taught this way, and where it is, it is often counterproductive.

Many of the strongest Christians I know came to faith from positions of scepticism. They are Christian because they were convinced by the weight of argument against their original position, or an overwhelming encounter with the reality of God (or both). A famous example of this is C.S. Lewis who was an atheist university lecturer. Even Jesus first disciples you could argue started from a sceptical position. Their ideas of Messiah were destroyed when they saw Jesus die. They only started to proclaim their faith after witnessing convincing proofs that Jesus had resurrected.

True scepticism is a good thing. If only there were a few more sceptics around when it comes to evolution, in place of the devout believers that reptiles turned into birds millions of years ago, though no one saw it happening and no one can explain how it happened. More scepticism in many areas of our public and private schools would be a good thing.

Ah…. We have another creationist in Mick V; someone else who can't imagine life without an overlord; who thinks because he doesn’t understand how it all began, it must have been his personal god who made it.
Apis, I hope I sound insulting because I am insulted by religionists who tell the world they invented morality, decency, goodness and self-sacrifice. I am insulted by religionists’ insistence that theirs is the only way to live and laws should be based on their irrational notions of a supernatural lord and master in the sky who arranges everything – even his own ‘snuff’ movies with all the catastrophes and wars and slavery, and horrors his favoured creations – humans, come up with. Religionists do not have a point of view, Apis; that implies thinking, reasoning, observation of fact, and contemplation of history. Religionists blindly follow dogma. It is faith they revere above all else. Because if you start to examine the bizarre claims of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, you discover they are as sensible and believable as the beliefs of the pre-Christian Zulus, Aztecs, Norsemen and Neanderthals… and you would consign them to the same file marked “Ancient belief systems.”

The article was a reasonable article. The beginning of the debate was heartening to me, as I have very strong views as to what my children are told by adults at school.

CJMorgan, now you understand my horror at what happens at primary state schools. It is unfortunately the Boazy's of this world who are fanatical enough to want to recruit souls who go and sprout nonsense to innocent children of unsuspecting parents. I was appalled at what my daughter came home with. Nobody asked my permission for her to be told this stuff and this in a public school funded by tax payers in this supposedly secular society.

I'm given forms and have to go to 'parent's information' evenings on 'sex' education, I have to give permission before the children can attend, but not for something as fundamentally important as spiritual and moral teachings. No, I actually have to demand removal from the class. It is outrageous.

General teaching on philosophical thought, both Religious and non-religious, would be fantastic. Unlike the Runners of this world, there are many non-Christian people who live exemplary moral lives. I wonder if he realizes how similar the fundamentalist Christians and Muslims sound?

Well written Yvonne:
The Head teachers of all state schools are legally obliged to inform parents of proposed religious instruction, and of the parents'right to refuse. They must post you a form for this purpose. You and other concerned parents must go to the school and insist that the students are given useful, valuable work that is assessed properly, in place of the religious indoctrination. Only parents can stop this evil [I use the word advisedly] because both major political parties are infiltrated with dogmatic religionists, and most marginal seats are subject to the block voting of fundamentalist religious groups. It is also important to realise that about 90% of all so-called 'independent' candidates are in reality representing fundamentalist religions, so be very wary when you vote.