Faith Schools Menace?
Discussion
Anyone watch this last night on More4? I thought it was quite interesting.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/faith-school-me...
All part of a Dawkins season, The God Delusion next week. I've read the book so I'm not sure if I'll learn anything new from the tv show, but I'll probably watch anyway.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/faith-school-me...
All part of a Dawkins season, The God Delusion next week. I've read the book so I'm not sure if I'll learn anything new from the tv show, but I'll probably watch anyway.
Didnt really learn anything new did we? It highlighted the stupidity of some people...not much else. The NI preist saying religion didnt divide (when he lives next to a 30ft high wall) and the muslim teacher who told her kids evolution was one theory but draw your own conclusions (and all 60 of her kids concluded we were put here by God and dinosaurs were a hoax) Retard Schools would have been a more apt title.
Oh...one interesting thing was the experiment with kids....showing how their brains like the idea of meaning and purpose and thats how religion takes hold.....for example, non-religious 5 years were all happy to say rocks were pointy, not because of how they are formed in the ground....but so animals can scratch on them!
Oh...one interesting thing was the experiment with kids....showing how their brains like the idea of meaning and purpose and thats how religion takes hold.....for example, non-religious 5 years were all happy to say rocks were pointy, not because of how they are formed in the ground....but so animals can scratch on them!
Tiggsy said:
Didnt really learn anything new did we? It highlighted the stupidity of some people...not much else. The NI preist saying religion didnt divide (when he lives next to a 30ft high wall) and the muslim teacher who told her kids evolution was one theory but draw your own conclusions (and all 60 of her kids concluded we were put here by God and dinosaurs were a hoax) Retard Schools would have been a more apt title.
Oh...one interesting thing was the experiment with kids....showing how their brains like the idea of meaning and purpose and thats how religion takes hold.....for example, non-religious 5 years were all happy to say rocks were pointy, not because of how they are formed in the ground....but so animals can scratch on them!
Children = captive audience.Oh...one interesting thing was the experiment with kids....showing how their brains like the idea of meaning and purpose and thats how religion takes hold.....for example, non-religious 5 years were all happy to say rocks were pointy, not because of how they are formed in the ground....but so animals can scratch on them!
For the brain washers and the control freaks.
Like the 'retard schools'!
Marf said:
Avoided watching it as I knew it would just angry up the blood.
The fact that my tax money goes towards the furtherance of religious ignorance makes me incredibly angry.
Would it make you angry to hear that 90% of the funding of these (30%+ of all schools) comes from the tax payer? The fact that my tax money goes towards the furtherance of religious ignorance makes me incredibly angry.
Lost_BMW said:
Marf said:
Avoided watching it as I knew it would just angry up the blood.
The fact that my tax money goes towards the furtherance of religious ignorance makes me incredibly angry.
Would it make you angry to hear that 90% of the funding of these (30%+ of all schools) comes from the tax payer? The fact that my tax money goes towards the furtherance of religious ignorance makes me incredibly angry.
Religion and school should be seperate. If a parent wishes to brainwash their child, it should be done on their own dime.
Marf said:
Lost_BMW said:
Marf said:
Avoided watching it as I knew it would just angry up the blood.
The fact that my tax money goes towards the furtherance of religious ignorance makes me incredibly angry.
Would it make you angry to hear that 90% of the funding of these (30%+ of all schools) comes from the tax payer? The fact that my tax money goes towards the furtherance of religious ignorance makes me incredibly angry.
Religion and school should be seperate. If a parent wishes to brainwash their child, it should be done on their own dime.
Tiggsy said:
Didnt really learn anything new did we? It highlighted the stupidity of some people...not much else. The NI preist saying religion didnt divide (when he lives next to a 30ft high wall) and the muslim teacher who told her kids evolution was one theory but draw your own conclusions (and all 60 of her kids concluded we were put here by God and dinosaurs were a hoax) Retard Schools would have been a more apt title.
Oh...one interesting thing was the experiment with kids....showing how their brains like the idea of meaning and purpose and thats how religion takes hold.....for example, non-religious 5 years were all happy to say rocks were pointy, not because of how they are formed in the ground....but so animals can scratch on them!
I learnt a few things. I didn't know how much RE there was in some schools.Oh...one interesting thing was the experiment with kids....showing how their brains like the idea of meaning and purpose and thats how religion takes hold.....for example, non-religious 5 years were all happy to say rocks were pointy, not because of how they are formed in the ground....but so animals can scratch on them!
My girlfriends mum teaches in a CofE primary, but they are very secular by the standards of the schools on this show.
I agree with the tax thing, no funding should go to sky daddy schools.
On tother hand, the Muslim one was very funny, when the Prof. asked that girl, 'and you are the one who wants to be a doctor?' She can either enter the real world or be a witch doctor to people of similar persuasion.
If I was to have kids I wouldn't mind if the children of other kids were being impeded by their indoctrination, I would do as the Prof. did, and exemplify to my own progeny the ability of critical thinking and empirical evidence.
On tother hand, the Muslim one was very funny, when the Prof. asked that girl, 'and you are the one who wants to be a doctor?' She can either enter the real world or be a witch doctor to people of similar persuasion.
If I was to have kids I wouldn't mind if the children of other kids were being impeded by their indoctrination, I would do as the Prof. did, and exemplify to my own progeny the ability of critical thinking and empirical evidence.
I've found Dawkins to be quite frustrating in the couple of programmes that I've seen him present.
He always seems to avoid delivering the knock out blow, e.g. the invisible barrier between saltwater and fresh water that the muslims girls believed in as set out in the Qur'an, why not say to them that that is total nonsense, and demonstrate it to them?
Similarly with the NI guy (teacher?), who argued that parents have a right to look after their kids according to what they feel is best and that for the state to take that freedom away from parents and dictate that they cannot attend a state school is a move towards dictatorship. Dawkins didn't answer him in person, but it cut to a voiceover where Dawkins answers the point for the tv audience, but obviously not to the guy that raised it, who was making a very good point, extremely well.
I'm coming to the conclusion that Dawkins just isn't a strong live debater, despite the fact that I've read several of his books and find them easy to read and very well written and his books have only strengthened my understanding of evolution as essentially being fact.
He always seems to avoid delivering the knock out blow, e.g. the invisible barrier between saltwater and fresh water that the muslims girls believed in as set out in the Qur'an, why not say to them that that is total nonsense, and demonstrate it to them?
Similarly with the NI guy (teacher?), who argued that parents have a right to look after their kids according to what they feel is best and that for the state to take that freedom away from parents and dictate that they cannot attend a state school is a move towards dictatorship. Dawkins didn't answer him in person, but it cut to a voiceover where Dawkins answers the point for the tv audience, but obviously not to the guy that raised it, who was making a very good point, extremely well.
I'm coming to the conclusion that Dawkins just isn't a strong live debater, despite the fact that I've read several of his books and find them easy to read and very well written and his books have only strengthened my understanding of evolution as essentially being fact.
elster said:
I was taught RE at school, it covered all religions and didn't specify for or against one.
This is the only way it should be taught when funded by the public purse.
Did the coverage of these religions leave in comment/ debate about some of the less palatable beliefs/ activities?This is the only way it should be taught when funded by the public purse.
Like persecution of homosexuals, killing of adulterers, ritual sacrifice, killing food animals without stunning on some silly and ancient basis, religiously inspired and/ or justified conflicts and killing etc? I'd doubt it.
youngsyr said:
I'm coming to the conclusion that Dawkins just isn't a strong live debater, despite the fact that I've read several of his books and find them easy to read and very well written and his books have only strengthened my understanding of evolution as essentially being fact.
I have no doubt that he could demolish those people in a debate, however he would come across quite badly in doing so in my opinion. There is no point getting into such a debate, because it is not possible to reason with religious people. Far better to make his point in other ways.I don't think the show set out to debate in a long argument about each of the persons view that was featured, you would need at least 30 mins of TV per person to start to get anywhere. To cover the 3 faiths that they did in was was probably 40 mins of TV ( 1 hour less the ads etc ) to cover their schooling, so no real room for a debate, more just to show what they think and teach.
The Muslim school in particular was really quite sad to view when we are talking about effectively brainwashing children.
The Muslim school in particular was really quite sad to view when we are talking about effectively brainwashing children.
tank slapper said:
youngsyr said:
I'm coming to the conclusion that Dawkins just isn't a strong live debater, despite the fact that I've read several of his books and find them easy to read and very well written and his books have only strengthened my understanding of evolution as essentially being fact.
I have no doubt that he could demolish those people in a debate, however he would come across quite badly in doing so in my opinion. There is no point getting into such a debate, because it is not possible to reason with religious people. Far better to make his point in other ways.Quite the opposite, at times in Faith Schools Menace he actually seemed exasperated, for example when talking to the muslim school girls and their teachers. I don't think his explanation was particularly dominant on the aspect he did cover (how we and apes co-exist if we're descended from them) and he didn't even comment on the salt water/fresh water barrier per the Qur'an argument, beyond asking the girl if she wanted to become a doctor.
Granted that's a subtle angle to take and works from an aetheist viewer's point of view, but surely it's those with faith that he needs to convince, not those without it? It's easy to say it from the comfort of my armchair, but I believe pointing out that the precise wording of the Qur'an, by having the girl look it up, and then showing that it's patently nonsense would be a much stronger argument?
I also found him very unconvincing when talking to the NI guy about the freedom of parents to choose what they feel is best for their children and that the removal of such freedom being a step towards a dictatorship. This is a very interesting argument, which Dawkins didn't address (or at least wasn't shown to address) in his debate with the NI guy and even afterwards was poorly addressed in the voice over following the clips from the discussion, IMO.
Reading Dawkins' books clearly shows him to be a master of the subject and completely convincing. It's just frustrating that he doesn't come across the same on TV.
I don't think an Oxford professor engaging schoolgirls in a defence of rationality would make particularly rivetting TV, or be particularly conducive to the point the programme was making. May as well show Lennox Lewis settling an argument on boxing technique by battering a couple of ten year olds.
For the purposes of the programme, I think we can take it as read that what the girls are being taught and have taken to be true is a religious falsehood - the programme was not about a defence of evolutionary theory, it doesn't really need defending.
For the purposes of the programme, I think we can take it as read that what the girls are being taught and have taken to be true is a religious falsehood - the programme was not about a defence of evolutionary theory, it doesn't really need defending.
otolith said:
I don't think an Oxford professor engaging schoolgirls in a defence of rationality would make particularly rivetting TV, or be particularly conducive to the point the programme was making. May as well show Lennox Lewis settling an argument on boxing technique by battering a couple of ten year olds.
For the purposes of the programme, I think we can take it as read that what the girls are being taught and have taken to be true is a religious falsehood - the programme was not about a defence of evolutionary theory, it doesn't really need defending.
Agreed that there's no need to take on school girls and it's an unfair match (or at least should be), but he did take them on, and wasn't particularly convincing in my opinion, reference his explanation of us and apes co-existing as I mentioned above. Likewise with the guy from NI, or the girls' teacher.For the purposes of the programme, I think we can take it as read that what the girls are being taught and have taken to be true is a religious falsehood - the programme was not about a defence of evolutionary theory, it doesn't really need defending.
To be clear, I'm not asking for him to take them on and destroy them, I'm simply saying that if he does take them on, he should destroy them, not make give very weak explanations or refuse to answer their arguments. To not do so makes him and his arguments appear much weaker than they are.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff