h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In terms of what children can understand and grasp as concepts, it probably doesn't matter too much whether people who don't happen to believe in a personal god are called atheists or whatever. The idea is to teach them about other personal philosophies that aren't religious. As well as other religious beliefs.

The term atheist does seem quite okay in this context. For children. And atheists are not the same as agnostics, who seem to be kind of fence-sitters, not being able to make up their minds about whether god(s) exist or not. As for the term 'rationalist' with regard to children, I don't know if they would actually see much difference between an atheist and a rationalist, to be honest.

The whole idea is to present a well-rounded education about religions and other options that exist. For children.

As I think Z has said here previously, I would have loved such a class when I was at school. In the end, I had to study this stuff for myself in my twenties, and I often felt so lacking in knowledge. In retrospect, I can't see how things like geography or mathematics are somehow 'more important' to teach kids. As for history, how can it be taught properly *without* also teaching about why most wars were fought? To give one example.

It would certainly help, especially with what is going on in the world today, for children to know that Muslims are not 'the scary enemy' and to have a more general idea of what Muslim culture is actually about. If I were ten years old now I think I'd feel quite afraid of these strange bearded men and totally covered up women who - I saw on the news! - are 'responsible' for blowing people up. How would that make me feel, as a child, when seeing similar looking people in my neighbourhood?

Now, more than ever, an understanding of different cultures and religions should be an important part of any school syllabus, imho.

az

We still seem to be stuck on this phrase of ?teaching atheism? in schools when atheism is something which is cannot be taught ? it is not a different religion with tenets, dogma and an instruction manual on how to live or how we came to be e.g. the Bible.

You can teach about the various different religions in schools; hold up the bible and say this is the book that Christians follow and contains the text that the Catholic Church decided should be in the Bible at the The Council of Hippo in A.D. 393 (of course, if you have the King James version there are a few more nuances i.e. changes made in that one).

You can then talk about how this text is interpreted by people down the ages and how the Church changes its view on the texts decade after decade to try and keep the Bible relevant. You can do this for all religions.

However, you cannot hold up a book that can teach you everything about ?atheism? because there isn?t one.

You can (broadly) say that (on the whole) an atheist does not believe in the existence of gods, this does not mean that they are immoral heathens it (on the whole) means that they believe that there is a more intellectual, complex, (rational) advanced explanation to how the universe was created: e.g. a ?big bang? of some sort and mechanism of evolution and natural selection. They do not purport to understand exactly how this all happened because it is a tad complicated but decade on decade the rationales and theories are improving as is our knowledge of the universe. Of course, since you need pretty good knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, zoology, mathematics and numerous other disciplines to actually begin to get a good understanding of the scientific explanation of the creation of the universe it is a little difficult to explain concisely ?what atheists believe? and give enough information for children to go away and assess the evidence for themselves because they will not have the cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills at that stage to actual do it.

However, it is very easy to teach religion as it is ?irrefutable fact? and the texts are there with no more information to be discovered about them only reinterpreted.

I have included nothing about morals and ethics re: atheism as the basic fact that a large number of Christians (the main religion of people who I come in contact with) in no way follow a moral or ethical route that could be construed as Christian apart from going to church, Bible study, giving a bit to charity and not coupling before marriage. They have no qualms about screwing people over to get ahead or being judgemental and condescending to non-Christians. These are the Christians I KNOW the ones YOU know may be different... i.e. they are no different from some non-religious people. I actually know a lot of ?atheists? who have more moral and ethical ways of life than the Christians I know.

Alfster,

There's a contradiction in your previous post, is there not?

"We still seem to be stuck on this phrase of ?teaching atheism? in schools when atheism is something which is cannot be taught"

and:

"Of course, since you need pretty good knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, zoology, mathematics and numerous other disciplines to actually begin to get a good understanding of the scientific explanation of the creation of the universe it is a little difficult to explain concisely ?what atheists believe"

Which means there is plenty of material to teach about atheism. For example each religion has its own creation story; usually a pretty central tenet of 'God the Creator'. Atheism is no different except that its own creation story is backed up by physical evidence. Similarly for other issues normally built into religious teaching:
Morals and moral guidance.
Consciousness / soul / self.
What happens after death.
There is a rational / atheistic equivalent.

Teaching these issues would stop the ignorant adoption of the moral high ground by certain believers who try to suggest that all atheists are immoral hedonists.

F

<>

Interesting statement...

I donno, its kinda like teachin chrisianity at school or whatever, how bout school stays math sci soc studies arts eng (and other langs) and the stuff you need to know for life, then at church... or lack of, kids can learn about their "beliefs"
cheers
athiesist, crappy speller, totalyy dead, missing my commrade, hater of dot books and aaron, and proud of what i do ford

In NZ, the education Act says "free, secular and compulsory"... The free part is being eaten away, has been I should say, by monetarist policies... RE as such doesn't exist, except that before school begins in the morning (0830-0845) 0r (0845-0900) depending on the school, there can be a talk by local churches, mosques etc. It goes without saying, that attendance is voluntary. I chose to exclude my son, and he suffered no harm by teasing etc, or from the teacher. This was because I believe very strongly in the provisions of the Education Act - the free part especially!

You can't force some to belive in something (except the mojority of americans who answer polls )

I agree, Bain...

Hi Adelaide!

"<>

Interesting statement... "

Do you mean to say that there isn't a rational/atheistic equivalent to these ideas, or am I just paranoid?

If you do mean to say that atheism does not/can not have ideas about these things, then I must protest. It may be your opinion, but in this case, your opinion can be proven wrong.

I am an atheist (this is non-contestable, if anyone tries to explain to me that I somehow do believe in god and don't realise it, they will look incredibly foolish, because I don't, and above that, I don't care if there is one or not).

But I also have very strong ideas about all three of these things:
<<Morals and moral guidance.
Consciousness / soul / self.
What happens after death.

I don't feel the need to explain them to anyone on h2g2, as they are private, but my point is, that you surely can't say that there is no atheist equivalent of these ideas.

Sure, atheism has no set ideas about morals, self, or after-life, but that does not mean that atheists don't think about them or consider them. In many cases, atheists, myself included, have put a great deal of thought into working out exactly what their stance is on these issues and many others -- often as much or more thought than some people who follow orthodox religions.

Perhaps in the religious/philosophical education classes for children, it could be mentioned that many atheists have very different ideas about these things, and some examples (existentialism, nihilism, the golden rule and such) could be given to the kids to explain how atheism does NOT mean a lack of thought about morals, the self and the afterlife.

Ami of zx

"It may be your opinion, but in this case, your opinion can be proven wrong."

Ami: try to get used to seeing Adelaide/Della/Adele/Debbie/Annie say things that can easily be proven wrong. It's a kind of a pattern that forms, y'know?

H.

No, Ami, I wasn't saying atheism doesn't have answers to these issues at all! I just wondered what they were, is all...
<>

I never did say that! It's just that atheism (as you say later on) doesn't have *set* ideas! Inasmuch as it isn't monolithic (I assume).

Adelaide,

"I wasn't saying atheism doesn't have answers to these issues at all! I just wondered what they were, is all... "

Is, of course, my point. Had you been taught about atheism in school you would know that atheists have a wide variety of answers to these - and many more - issues. These answers, unlike those of the major religions, are generally tailored to the particular circumstances or societies in which they live.

F

Adelaide, do you know what proportion of the children do attend this pre-school RE talk? If so, do you know how many are active members of any religious faith?

I'm just interested to know if it tends to be the non-religious who choose (or their parents choose for them) to go & acquire information, or the religious. On the other hand, any of them may just prefer a bit longer in bed each morning!

I really don't know, Teasswill, I think probably most of them, inasmuch as their parents don't really care, "too lazy to have an opinion" my son just suggested. The non-Christian religious people opted out.

I think little Jimmy is almost right and Della's other son is almost completely wrong on this subject.

Parents dont tend to have a lot of views about what acts of worship their children get involved in. If they do their hand tends to be forced by the religious group they are part of.

True they are not urged at gunpoint but social pressure can amount to a similar incentive. Parents on the whole are too lazy minded or busy to form their own thought out opinions and tend to just trudge along on the path of least resistance without really thinking where its leading them or their children.

There are many questions that rationalists/atheists dont have answers for because they are pointless questions.

We dont spend time thinking about what happens to the soul in the after life or if certain acts taint the soul because we dont believe in souls.

You may aswell ask a rationalists how many Easter bunnies are equal in weight to Zeus?

However we do look for real answers and solutions that are not tied to dogmatic BS handed/rammed down by past generations.

And far more importantly we hope that future generations can find solutions and answers that work for the problems they will face and dont insist they accept ours.

This is why rationalism is without doubt better than theism.

Dont try to say that's opinion Della its a fact like Religion being the oldest racket going its a fact you may not like but dont try to dismiss it as an opinion because it is based on things we can akll observe in the world.

one love

Adelaide!

Okeydokey, I apologise for getting worked up slightly too early, it was friday 13, I'd been on edge all day and just received some bad news.

About the RE classes, I think there is merit in saying that social pressure may do more to contribute to attendance in these classes than 'lazy parent syndrome'. I am the child of very busy parents but I was made to go to RE classes until I was maybe 11 not because my parents didn't know what was going on, but because it was easier to make me go rather than fight with the school about it with no 'just cause'. My grandparents are christians, so mum and dad didn't think I had a good enough excuse not to go to the classes. This was also the case with many of my peers, whose parents had varying degrees of religious fervor. They decided I had a good enough excuse not to go after some comments about the reason my little brother is disabled were made. These comments are a big part of my distrust towards many christian people, and my general dislike of the religion itself. I accept the fact that they were not typical, and most normal christians would never say such things, but basically I've been turned off for life.

A more informed and accepting generation (of people that will be my potential children's ages) will perhaps not face this kind of pressure to participate in religious education of the old style. But if teachings about atheism, philosophy, religions other than the major religion of the country where I live, and such are included in RE classes, I will encourage the little ones to participate.

Ami of zx

Well, i decided that some figures were needed and I looked up the world factbook (from the CIA) figures;

USA : Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (1989)

UK : Anglican and Roman Catholic 40 million, Muslim 1.5 million, Presbyterian 800,000, Methodist 760,000, Sikh 500,000, Hindu 500,000, Jewish 350,000 (percentages unknown)

NL: Unaffiliated 40% Roman Catholic 31%, Protestant 21%, Muslim 4.4%, other 3.6%, (1998)



To me this is a very strange, though interesting discussion because my country (Netherlands) is do "de-church i fied".

Source used: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

I wonder how they obtained their statistics - because lots of people record themselves as being 'C of E' although they only appear in church for births, marriages, deaths & may be Christmas & Easter if that, & otherwise are non-practising.

Hello, Ami, I hope the bad news wasn't too awful, and you're feeling a bit better...
The situation here is quite different from in the UK, because RE here officially takes place in the quarter hour before school... and what my son meant, probably, was that parents drop their kids off at school then don't care what they do until home time... This is in primary school only, by the way - as far as I know, internediate and high schools don't have this thing at all. (In high school, especially when doing the equivalent of A levels, students hardly have time to take a breath - at least that's my son's experience - much less worry about extra-curricular activities.)
<>
I am shocked that Christians made such remarks - I am glad you know that not all Christians would say such things, and I apologise on behalf of those that did. That's appalling that *anyone* would say such things!
<>
That's good... Things are so different there, here RE as such is taught only in Christian,Jewish and Muslim schools... (there is only one Muslim school in our city, and it's the biggest city in the country.) I am very surprised RE is taught in state schools there, that's . I don't agree with it!
There's a couplet I came across in my school days (in a political context.)
A man convinced against his will/Is of the same opinion still.
That's why I oppose RE in schools!