I'm an atheist. But I've got faith in Religious Studies

[cbayer]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/im-an-atheist-but-ive-got-faith-in-religious-studies-9200300.html

MPs said yesterday that the potential for conflict in multi-faith areas would be reduced if young people were given classes on different religions



I was brought up by painfully atheistic parents. As a family, the closest we came to worship was listening with absolute reverence to Radio 4’s Today programme every morning, and even that was turned off if ‘Thought for the Day’ got a bit too spiritual.

My primary school was Church of England though, and from the age of five I prayed before lunch, sang hymns after school and listened to Bible readings in assembly. Throughout my education I became fascinated by the notion of different belief systems and eventually managed to persuade my reluctant parents to let me study Religious Studies at A-Level and ultimately university, convincing them that choosing a degree in RS was not akin to taking holy orders. (If anything, I felt my agnostic approach allowed me to consider different religions with an open mind.)

I chose the subject, in part, because I could see its relevance in a world eaten up by its obsession with faith. Whether you follow the teachings of Christ, Buddha or Wayne Rooney, worship plays an important role in modern life. However, many religions, Islam being the most obvious, are portrayed inaccurately by the mainstream media, feeding pre-existing prejudices and stereotypes. It’s terrifying to think that reading sensationalist, anti-Muslim headlines could one day be the only religious education available to children.

MPs said yesterday that the potential for conflict in multi-faith areas would be reduced if young people were given classes on different faiths. According to Stephen Lloyd MP, religious education “prepares children for the challenges and opportunities of multicultural life, and helps them live harmoniously with others”. So why don’t we take religious education seriously?

more at link

[djean111]

1. I could agree with this, but a lot of religious education for children that I have seen is not

presented as "some people believe this" but is used to evangelize directly to children.

[cbayer]

7. And that is a significant difference that merits close attention.

When doing this, I think it is critical to make sure that it is truly supplying education and not indoctrination.

[Feral Child]

19. My caveat, too.

IF monitored for abuse I believe this is probably acceptable for college level education, perhaps at the secondary level.


I do admit some guilt at hoping that, if students see that all religions are fundamentally the same, more atheism will result.



I'd like to be neutral, but it's very difficult.

[cbayer]

20. I think we might see more diversity in general.

When people who are inclined to be religious only get exposed to one flavor, they may not know there are other options. For those not inclined to be religious, they may explore atheism and that may result in more people taking on that POV.

But as long as it leads to an overall decrease in prejudice and increase in tolerance and understanding, I'm good with it.

[Feral Child]

35. Agreed

and well stated.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. What the hell does 'painfully atheistic' mean?

[trotsky]

5. Just more of the recurring meme of how horrible atheism is...

where even atheists are ashamed of the word and have to apologize and point out how "extreme" it can be.

[cbayer]

12. You would have to ask the author.

[HockeyMom]

3. Comparative Religion in Catholic HS

Studying about all the major religions and who founded them, their dogma, etc. Their arugment was that you cannot promote and argue your own faith, if you don't know what the other religions are all about. Of course, their's was the best and true religion!!! Right. Anway, I enjoyed those classes. You might say, it made me see the light? My Senior paper in that class was to make the case for why there isn't a God. lol Got an A on that paper. Hint?

[longship]

4. Always a damned good idea (so to speak).

Education about religion could be one of the absolutely best ideas ever. It is funny that those who would oppose such a thing are likely the most religious. I don't have data to support that hypothesis, but I suspect that it may be true. Either that, or they would attempt to pervert such education into a course in proselytization.

It really is sad. One cannot be a credible non-believer unless one is educated about that which one does not believe.

I'd be interested to read what others think about this.

[djean111]

13. "One cannot be a credible non-believer unless one is educated about that which one does not believe"

Sorry, really, but bwahahahaha! First, as an atheist, I don't care if a theist thinks I am credible - and anyway, what does that mean? That I secretly believe in a god?
Second, atheism is just absence of belief in any sort of deity. There is nothing in any religious education that proves there is a deity. The constructs and results of religion are interesting, and in some cases, provide a good heads up, but there is nothing in the books that would cause me to believe in something that I cannot believe in.

[longship]

15. I am not saying learning religion. I am saying learning ABOUT religion.

For Christ sakes (so to speak), one can not argue an atheist POV unless one knows the counter. That is the same position as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, and Stenger advocate for.

It is not about learning how to do apologetics. It is about learning the history of religions, always a good thing, don't you think?

Education about religion is the solution, not the problem.

[djean111]

17. Then your post must be directed to those who argue against religion.

I don't think people are fools for believing, if their belief does not impact me in any way.
I argue against religion affecting my life.
My atheist POV - there is no deity of any kind.
Theist POV - yes there is.
Absolutely all there is to it - the rest is just flack and confetti.
I cannot prove there is no deity, and a theist cannot prove there is a deity.
Why argue? is my take on it.

[longship]

23. Irrelevant to this discussion.

The issue is learning about religion, not whether gods exist. Your post seems like a non-sequitur.

[cbayer]

14. I haven't seen any objections, per se, and certainly not from any particular groups.

The issue seems to be whether to make it more important than it currently is. That means increased time and resources devoted to the subject, which is where the debate seems to lie.

I think it's more important than ever to give kids at least an overview and agree with the author that it has the potential to significantly reduce prejudice, which is often born of ignorance.

I don't understand the statement about being a credible non-believer. If that is the case, could it not also be said that one can't' be a credible believer unless one is educated about the other religions that one does not believe?

[longship]

16. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

And many prominent atheists agree.

[cbayer]

18. I would also strongly advocate for the inclusion of atheism as one of the

areas of study.

While some may maintain the position that atheism is no more than the simple rejection of a single idea, I think it is much more nuanced and complicated than that.

At any rate, it certainly deserves a seat at the table, particularly since atheists have been a group that has been subjected to prejudice.

[longship]

25. Well, any discussion of religious history should include that, too.

I would hope that it would.

[longship]

22. Given that it is given no importance at all?

That may be the problem. Dawkins and Hitchens have both said that learning about religion was important to them for forming their later positions on religion. BTW, the UK had mandatory religious education, albeit of an Anglican/Episcopal, toned down sort. It is not surprising that all of the prominent atheists agree that education about religion is crucial, however not religious education.

I know that you know that there is a difference. Apparently some posting in this thread do not.

That's too bad.

[cbayer]

27. Perhaps not understanding the difference is one of the roadblocks that

needs to be vigorously addressed.

One sees a lot of things said in this group about various religions that are totally inaccurate. Even a basic education in the tenets of various belief systems and the variability within them could make a big difference.

Clearly this is not about indoctrinating people into a particular religion, but educating them in what religion is and how it is expressed.

[longship]

29. That's the danger.

There are those -- possibly very many -- who would abuse such a program to proselytize for their twisted version of religion... mainly Biblical literalist Christianity.

We all know that this is precisely what would happen. So although I would like to support such a program, in this crazy country I know it would never work as intended. So I would have to be against any such initiative, no matter how it was framed. Plus, there's the establishment clause.

Alas, I fear we are stuck with the system we have. Religious education is relegated to the churches and the theology schools. Too bad, eh?

[cbayer]

31. I agree that there is a risk, but I also think it could be done.

It would require oversight and regulation, similar to what we are hopefully seeing with science education.

[longship]

32. What we are hopefully seeing with science education?

Do you mean the overt young Earth creationism taught in public funded schools in Louisiana and Texas? And in many other school districts across the nation? Do you mean that so-called science education? NCSE

This is precisely why I would not support any religious history being put into a state's curriculum. It would be an excuse to teach fundy Christianity.

The UK has an advantage, as do the Scandinavian countries. They all have (had) a state religion which almost nobody pays any attention to. I find that pretty damned humorous. Here in the USA a state religion is forbidden, yet we have the most problems with religion in the so-called free world, the most intrusive. It's Bizarro world, if you ask me.

[cbayer]

33. I was referring to the attempts to standardize science education so

that completely unsupported ideas, like creationism, are kept out of the curriculum.

IIRC, there are a few national projects addressing this and glad to see that link to NCSE.

While I understand your concern, and think the risk is real, it could still be an objective worth reaching for.

As you said, the only place people can get it is in their church or in a seminary, where they are much more likely to get a very biased kind of education.

My son, who attended a catholic school (for reasons that are complicated) actually got a great education in religion. It was very purposefully designed to not promote any specific religion, but to promote understanding of others. A jesuit approach, if you will.

I would disagree with the US having the most problems with religion. I think many of the Islamic countries have much worse problems. And countries in Scandinavia and the UK are having very significant problem with immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants.

[Feral Child]

24. I can see the point

about increasing resources. On the one hand, I do think it's a bit of waste (from my POV) because i believe it should be geared toward discrediting religion. I know that believers will object to that, but it's what I believe.

More importantly than my viewpoint, it seems very important in light of current events: there are religious wars continuing today.

If you are Christian (for example) you should understand Islam before you decide on a Crusade. Reverse is true, of course. This applies to all religions. Even to those-who-lack-religious beliefs; how am I to understand current events without an understanding of the core beliefs of the various contending parties? By that, I mean the Abortion Crusades as well as the Middle East conflicts.

Look, I deplore it, but the fact that religions are an integral part of politics is inescapable.

"...it has the potential to significantly reduce prejudice, which is often born of ignorance."

Absolute agreement.

[cbayer]

28. I completely disagree with you and would equally object to the goal of

promoting any single religion or discrediting all religion. Both of those are indoctrination and exactly what these kinds of courses should not do.

Of course religious people would object to that, as they should. I would hope that non-religious people would also recognize that that defeats the whole purpose.

[Feral Child]

34. I did qualify

my statement that it was merely my POV, and that a more objective POV is essential.

I have to be honest, but I DO realize my views are extreme and a matter of my own prejudice.

I do maintain that, as a tool for understanding current events, a purely objective Studies curriculum is necessary.

[cbayer]

37. Got it and thanks for the clarification.

Having a strong POV is a-ok with me, but wanting to impose it on others is not.

Welcome to the Religion group, Feral Child.

[Feral Child]

39. Thanks for the welcome.

I can be contentious but I'm seeking to buffer that.

I really don't want to impose my views, I just want people to sucumb to my overwhelming logic.

[cbayer]

42. Love it. Me, too.

If everyone could just see things my way, the world would be such a better place.

[trotsky]

6. "I'm an atheist but I think religious studies are good"

To me, that statement implies MOST atheists are opposed to teaching about religion.

Is there any data to back up that kind of assertion? Or is it just more bashing of the boogeyman atheist, you know the one, who wants to forcibly destroy all religion and kill everyone who doesn't renounce it?

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. It seems to be the only way to get an editorial with an atheist slant published...

...is if you callously backhand your fellows in the opening paragraph.

"I'm an atheist but... [state how you are not like those atheists who may or may not even exist]"

Sure, there are some atheists who aren't particularly interested in the specifics of comparative religion, but even the notoriously theologically-averse Dawkins isn't opposed to comparative religious studies.

[trotsky]

10. EVEN DAWKINS?!?

ZOMG, the evil king anti-theist is ok with comparative religious studies? Who woulda thunk it?

[Feral Child]

26. I believe he has a misplaced confidence

that such education will make the preposterous nature of the subject matter so inescapable...

(That was a joke. I believe Dawkins is much more interested in dispelling ignorance and prejudice. He's a much better person than I am.)

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Good point. I encourage it as well.

"Know your enemy"
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK"

etc.

[trotsky]

11. Learning more about my religion (and others) is what led me to atheism.

Definitely.

[IrishAyes]

21. As a devout cradle Catholic, I was still given a wide education in comparative religion,

and I mean OUTSIDE church - so don't think for one minute it was skewed. But it had the strongest impact on my own world view, and I'm thankful for that. Not respecting other persons and cultures enough to learn about what was important to them is, to me, a most un-Christian behavior. I like, for instance, the way Buddhist and Catholic priests in Asia commonly co-officiate at various ceremonies, and I was able to attend lectures given by prominent theologians from different faiths. While my own church did not require this, my parents certainly did. The one and only televangelist I every listened to and enjoyed ran a long series on different Christian denominations, and he wasn't into criticizing any of them. The title of his series was "What I Like About..." and it was totally delightful.

Point being, ignorance is not our friend. Knowledge is.

Conservatives have never enjoyed my favorite story about living in L.A. where my home served as an unofficial welcome wagon for many new immigrants. On one occasion a couple arrived for dinner and everything was fine until I excused myself to step into the kitchen, wearing my shoes. I knew from their horrified gasps that I'd committed some faux pas. Turns out at least in their culture, and from what I later learned about many poverty stricken areas, there's a strong belief in a kitchen god. Since food is scarce, the place it's prepared becomes especially holy and wearing shoes there is just as disrespectful as in a temple.

Once I realized the particulars, I told them most Americans didn't have kitchen gods (for better or worse) but the international laws of hospitality do encourage respect for guests. So I could happily remove my shoes for them. They were happy even though they didn't want the honor for themselves. They also didn't want to bring a curse on my house by eating food there which might not be in accordance with what they considered reverent. So it was a win-win situation and we had a thoroughly happy evening.

Now go try to tell that to a conservative of any sort and watch their heads explode. I don't need to tell you what they'll scream in rage; indeed, most of it doesn't bear repeating in public.

[cbayer]

30. That's a great story about the kitchen gods.

Although I did not receive any specific education in religion, I was raised in an environment where some other religions were talked about and respected.

That included mostly Jews and Catholics and I grew up knowing virtually nothing about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or anything else.

I totally agree with you about respecting the custom and beliefs of those from other cultures, whether they be religious or not.

[Uben]

36. I used to call myself an atheist, but I was wrong

I just did not believe the stuff that I learned as a youngster in Baptist churches, or any other church, as far as that goes. I still do not believe in god as it is taught in the Bible.

That said, I never discounted it entirely. I always thought that at least some of it was true, but badly misconstrued. And I still feel that way. I don't believe in god, I believe in gods! Or, to be more precise, I believe in beings from other worlds, which were deemed gods by our ancestors. So, I suppose that makes me a theist.

The Bible just isn't logical in the way it is portrayed. Every religion on earth seems to deal with beings from the heavens that visited many years ago. So, to me, logically, it seems we were visited by many beings from the heavens who wanted to keep their race alive. That would explain the differing races of people on earth now, and would lend credence to all religions that are based on heavenly visits. Some could have been giants, some much smaller than humans, some looking nothing like humans at all! This would explain some of the many men and creatures porrtayed in the Bible.

That's what I believe...it's the only thing that is reasonable to my brain. Weird? Yeah, I know, but nothing else works. so....

[cbayer]

38. Fascinating POV and one shared by others.

I wrote a paper in college about how evolution most probably did not begin and end on this tiny planet and how I thought that what people called "god" could very well be a being or beings that had evolved far beyond what we can even imagine.

I've never quite reconciled that as being "god" for me, but I still believe that we are not any where near the top of the food chain.

And I'm not convinced that whatever that is has a presence or any effect at all here, but I certainly don't rule it out.

I sometimes fantasize that we are ants in someone's ant farm.

What you believe isn't weird to me, it's just another unique and interesting perspective. Everyone has one and I think everyone should be permitted to without fear of being attacked simply for holding that POV.

[Uben]

40. Well, it's all about perspective...

I allow everyone to believe what they want without question because we believe what our brains allow us to believe.

I'll take it a step further....I believe even the animals here on earth were placed here, as well, for the benefit of the races left here. I'm sure evolution has even played a big part in the development of both humans and animals, as well as plant-life.

Just trying to make it work so my brain will accept it. I don't need answers, but I do seek them. In the meantime, I'm just trying to enjoy the time I have here. We cycle in and then cycle out, what we do in between is up to us. We can choose to let the environment act on us or we can choose to act upon it. There are those that do both.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. So basically you don't understand evolution and have substituted a fairy tale about

space aliens as an explanation you can understand, with the additional ingredient of "everything here for the benefit of humans". That latter part is an ideology pervasive at least in the Abrahamic religions, and is, in my opinion, an ideology that is responsible for great evil in the world right now.

[Uben]

44. Everyone has an opinion

You're welcome to yours, as I am to mine. I don't care one iota what you do or do not believe. I'm not selling anything, just stating my own beliefs.

[cbayer]

43. Making things work so that your brain will accept it is something we all do.

I'm trying to enjoy my time, too. I'm currently at a stage where I am feeling that it may be now or never, so I'm going places and taking risks that I may not have 10 years ago.

And really loving it.

I hope you are able to do the same.

[Goblinmonger]

47. So if I were to say that blacks were inferior to whites

and they were created with black skin so it was an easy mark to make their inferiority more easily recognizable on sight, you would not question that. It's "what my brain allows me to believe"?

Well, I'm not going to do that. As discussed in another thread, I don't have to tolerate intolerance. Additionally, I don't have to tolerate stupidity. The earth wasn't created 6000 years ago. To quote a former host of this fine group, if you believe that, you're a dumbass. Science has explained a great many things and people don't get a pass because they "don't believe in evolution." It's not something you believe it. It's real. It's a thing.

[Uben]

52. We all have to live with ourselves

Believe what you want, but don't try to sell me your beliefs and we'll be just fine.

[goldent]

55. +1

Reminds me of the great Bob Dylan lyric

I try my best
To be just like I am
But everybody wants you
To be just like them

[trotsky]

56. I think we benefit from trying to make others more tolerant.

This is done by explaining things to them, and - GASP - trying to change their beliefs.

So it's not always bad. And getting anything done in politics requires one to get others to agree with them.

These simplistic notions about how "well it's only people insecure in their beliefs who try to challenge others" really don't hold much water when you start looking at how the world actually works.

[skepticscott]

57. Very true

No one posts here without the intent of influencing the thinking of others, whether they admit it or not. If all they wanted was just to say "I believe this" and absolutely nothing else, they could do that in Interfaith. And...um...they don't.

[On the Road]

45. I Would Welcome Anything to Relieve the Level of Religious Ignorance

The version of Christianity depicted on DU is not only unrecognizable. If corresponding statements were made about Jews it would be, in Rachel Maddow's terms, "hair-raising." Some of the silliest damn charges routinely get laid at the feet of Christianity without anyone batting an eye.

When Oscar Wilde was taking his oral exam in classics, he was asked to translate the portion from near the end of Acts in which Paul is shipwrecked. When the professors told him he had translated enough, Wilde quipped "Oh, I wanted to keep reading and see how it turns out." Everyone laughed -- there was no need to explain that Acts ends inconclusively in media res. It was scarcely a devout group, but religious knowledge was so much more common it was taken for granted.

[skepticscott]

46. Can you be more specific?

What "statements" and "damn charges" are you referring to?

[rug]

53. You can start with cleahippie's two OPs on mental illness.

Oh, and peruse your journal.

[Goblinmonger]

48. Two Things

1. What skeptic said above. I'd be interested in the answer, too.
2. You do know that significant studies have indicated that atheists have more knowledge of religions than members of the actual religion. So if you are saying that atheists are making statements about religions based on ignorance, you would be wrong. Me as an example. I'm an atheist. I get believers angry with some of the things I say. I was raised very conservative Catholic and went to a high school Catholic seminary. I know quite a bit about that religion. More than many in this discussion group that are catholics, too, for what it's worth.

[cbayer]

49. And it doesn't seem to matter how often or how many people

correct the flagrant misconceptions that are routinely repeated over and over again, the myths persist.

Why, it's almost like religious beliefs at times, isn't it?

Love the Oscar Wilde story. One of the saddest things about the decrease in general liberal arts education is that people are less and less likely to get education in areas that they didn't even know they might be interested in. I so value mine.

[skepticscott]

50. The alternative explanation

is that the so-called "corrections" are unsupported by fact or reason, but are simply things that believers and apologists are determined to keep defending, no matter how silly they're shown to be.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. Indeed it isnt as if biblical literalism homophobic bigotry and misogyny were taught by mainstream

religious institutions, or that 46% of the population believes in creationist idiocy.

[skepticscott]

58. Apparently you can't be more specific

what a shock.

[skepticscott]

51. So is it the case

that conflicts between Sunni and Shiite Muslims are largely attributable to the members of one sect not knowing what the members of the other believe? Were the religious wars in Europe based on Catholics not understanding anything about what Protestants believed and practiced and vice versa? Um..no.

Or is it that the absolutism and intolerance generated so often by religion get people fighting over what's really pretty fucking stupid and trivial stuff?