AJ Philips,
I'll admit you’ve got the running in this; there’s a mountain of mystical crap piling up out there such that it’s a chore sorting through it for something that’s not an embarrassment, and you have the ideological wind at your back, but I shall soldier on—piecemeal.

<People like Dawkins do hastily dismiss mysticism and spirituality (as do I), but there’s nothing irrational about that considering scientific explanations have been found for everything was once thought to have mystical properties>

It depends what you mean by “mysticism”; I agree that what outrages reason should be dismissed—though who’s reason?—I only think it’s hasty to dismiss the complexity of consciousness, psyche, the projections and introjections of the human heart (in matters above the heart), as well as real experience, as necessarily delusional—or indeed superfluous to “reason”.
The fact is human beings inhabit a material and idealistic world simultaneously. It could be that the latter is a product of language and culture—an evolutionary eccentricity. But if that’s so, how can we trust our ability to interrogate reality objectively? And if our powers of reason are above their culturally-conditioned and historiciesd intelligence quotient, which means they may apprehend, indeed interrogate, nature independently, or in excess of cultural cyphers, wherefore this a priori capacity to exceed nature—for nature to transcend itself in effect? (this is pure Kant)
If human reason is, rather, beset by phantasms of its own making (what Hume called the “passions”. Though the philosopher Schelling thought we were irretrievably mad, rather than distracted), is it not fatally compromised, indeed a delusion? How can reason, pure epiphenomena, objectify and transcend itself—like termites building a cathedral?
Your proof against these anxieties (not that scientismists are anxious about anything) is, as you say, that science always comes through in the end. But how many scientific hypotheses have stood the test of time? And how many will stand in a thousand years? http://www.online-literature.com/shelley_percy/672/
Isn’t it striking that if reality is so objectively available, and empirical reason is so reliable, that the truth is so elusive and changeable?
But I'm sure you've considered all this.
tbc

Loudmouth,
Obviously you would be teaching by example and belief atheism; an not teaching subjectively religious studies.

AJ Philips:
<But that doesn’t mean they’re not open to spiritual/mystical answers if they can be demonstrated (I know Dawkins clarified this many times before), however, it’s up to the invoker [sic] of such ideas to present the evidence.>
This is interesting—that you designate the source of the idea the “invoker”. Doesn’t the terminology trivialise the account at the outset and prophesy the conclusion?
What you’re saying is that mystical evidence is only admissible if it’s subject to empirical analysis, that is demystified and made manifest—no longer mystical? Otherwise it’s discarded as delusional. No wonder the evidence is thin! All part of the scientistic filtering process, but doesn’t that make the findings tendentious, indeed guarantee them?
< Okay, I really haven’t been clear when I’ve spoken of the modern “use” and “meaning” [of scientism]. I take full responsibility for all the confusion here. I have pretty ordinary communication skills and talking to someone who sounds like they’ve swallowed a thesaurus is really testing>
This is fascinating too; a generous confession of semantic confusion, followed by false modesty and the invocation of a Casaubon—a sesquipedalian pedant. I’m glad I’m at least a little testing.
< The meaning [of scientism] appears to have always been the same. The last link you provided and the OED references support what I believe scientism to be. Your definition seems to be a little more lax.>
According to the OED it wasn’t always derogatory. But as I keep saying, I’m more interested in the manifestation of scientism than semantics. However, my “lax” understanding of it is both more comprehensive and faithful to the generous spirit of the term.
< in my experience (and the experience of many others) the term is now predominantly used by theists wanting to stop someone in their tracks because they don’t feel comfortable with science exploring certain places. I’ve had it happen to me on OLO>
I’m sorry, but according to your own strictures your anecdotal experience, as well as that of the “many others” you invoke, is inadmissible and possibly delusional, and I don’t feel like ...

cont.
..sorting through the OLO concordance you linked to. In any event it’s a localised and close-knit community wherein words are passed-on like memes (though I’m disappointed “minimifidianism” never caught on). I’m sure Dawkins would agree you need to cite a much more diverse theistic sample to substantiate a new pejorative trend. But perhaps your opponents were sincere in their charge of scientism, and resent analytic denunciations of what is after all mysterious—spiritual.
<No, I simply used an analogy [scientism]. I still addressed the arguments regarding humanism>
Isn’t this a good definition and instance of “en passant”?

<You could possibly say that I imply that science MAY solve it all, and suspecting that this may be the case is entirely rational considering every unknown in the past, that was thought to have a spiritual/mystical/miraculous/transcendental/other-worldly explanation, was eventually found to have a scientific one.>
Doesn’t this only apply to natural phenomena? Can you give me an example of the “spiritual/mystical/miraculous/transcendental/other-worldly” that’s been found to have a scientific explanation? I don’t mean a scientific rationalisation or cull, such as that these phenomena are deemed delusional and/or inadmissible, and I don’t mean speculation, I mean an explanation?
It could be argued that mystical experiences and explanations have been discredited and superseded according to the dictates of our new scientistic paradigm; overcome by its success in manipulating material reality and obtuse to idealistic/spiritual/mystical experience, ergo it dismisses the latter as aberration. As we are seeing in the groundswell of support for modern naturalism, much of the lay-community is easily persuaded to conform, just as they were to the conventions of more ecclesiastical times, but there’s a troubling majority that refuses to turn, whose members take obstinate comfort from their respective faiths. Then there are a great many with no institutional affiliation, who are yet unable to dismiss their personal idealistic/spiritual/experiential lives. On top of that, our increasingly materialistic lifeworld is showing ever-greater signs of stress and mental disturbance—of course, this irrational, “pathological”, pandemic is instantly diagnosed and medicated by the scientific bodies.

TBC

For me, the last dozen or so posts illustrate perfectly why it is dangerous to teach "religion" in schools. There seem to be so many different understandings of what "religion" is, it would be impossible for any two people even to agree on a basic text.

The various manifestations of religion need to be placed into some context, of course. But this can be done within the realms of existing curricula of history, geography, economics, philosophy etc., without the need to find what is essentially an internal definition.

Just as it is not at all necessary, for example, to understand that the solar constant is approximately 1,368 watts per square meter, before you apply sunscreen.

For a person to teach a subject they ought to have some passion and real experential knowledge about the subject.

To teach art or music one ought to have real live expressions and ability in each. To teach mathmatics or science one ought to have real passion for their subject so as to enthuse the students. Similarly with history or geography they ought to have travelled or have seen images of their subject. Similarly with religion passion and conviction is essential. To have another agenda to divert or degrade the subject matter does not qualify one as a teacher of the subject. Though lessons on bad behaviour or world views are part of teaching ethics and morality.

The essential lessons of Christianity are forgiveness and the granting of grace to wrong doers [or an enemy]. The person teaching Christianity ought to have personal experience of these essential attitudes.