Culture Education Intelligent Design Religion

Richard Dawkins: Religious ed is a key school subject

Spread the love

Bad news for Separation of Church and State lawyers. From Laura Geggel at LiveScience:

Despite his criticism of intelligent design and creationism, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins told people at a science festival this past the weekend that he believes religious education is a key subject for schoolchildren.

Dawkins, who is open about his atheism, said that understanding religion can help students get a better grasp of the world’s history and culture. He made the statement during a public conversation at the Cheltenham Science Festival in Gloucestershire, England, on Sunday (June 11), according to The Telegraph.

It’s basically impossible to study English literature without some knowledge of Christianity, Dawkins noted. More.

Religious education gets people used to the idea that other people are allowed to have different opinions.

And what’s the alternative? Current U’s, so far as I can see, are turning out hordes of enraged entitle-ees, indebted for life for a worthless education from post-modern “studies” profs, aiming to enforce Political Correctness on the world.

Their main problem is with reality. Reality is where you discover that people who are afraid of you will avoid you rather than hire you. But you are still deep in debt and no one cares.

😉 By the way, that guy with the bicycle chain is still in jail. Isn’t he? 😉

See also: Part 5: How can we defend the right to think for ourselves? You need true grit and a thick skin


How naturalism rots science from the head down

6 Replies to “Richard Dawkins: Religious ed is a key school subject

  1. 1
    J-Mac says:

    Richard Dawkins: Religious ed is a key school subject

    Including his…

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    “people who are afraid of you will avoid you rather than hire you. ”

    If the entitled one is A Person Of Colour or A Person Of Gender, employers are REQUIRED to hire her/him/ve/um. As Dolezal has shown us, being A Person Of Colour is a matter of declaration, incapable of disproof by old-fashioned obsolete crimethink notions like genetics.

  3. 3
    EricMH says:

    In that case, people can identify as any special interest group X to get said privileges bestowed on X. Even better, identify as all special interest groups to be super inclusive.

    What, some categories are mutually exclusive? I can identify as logic challenged, and claim the logicists are discriminating against me, probably due to patriarchy or whatnot. Being logic challenged and immune from discrimination, I can reap whatever benefits I want.

    The great thing about an inconsistent set of axioms that allow me to conclude both A and not A is I can conclude anything I want, and the politically correct police must provide me all the benefits.

  4. 4
    News says:

    polistra at 2: Crimethink? About genetics, I dunno. When it comes to crime, I am with English Common Law: What is the “gravamen” of the offence?

    That is, what are we asked to believe that the accused actually DID?

    The law cannot deal in claims about genetics or what people supposedly think inside the sealed boxes of their own heads. Only in what happened.

  5. 5
    drc466 says:

    Religious education is a bad idea, unless the people teaching about the religion are advocates of that religion. Given the sheer number of religions out there, it would be impossible to have that many teachers cover them all fairly.

    Of course Dawkins is in favor of religious education – as long as academics like him get to write the textbooks. It’s like that saying about regulating hate speech – I’ll let you outlaw hate speech, if you let me define what qualifies as hate speech. Only in this case it is I’ll let you teach religious education – as long as you let me write the textbooks and teach the classes.

    Religious teaching should be left to churches, and self-study programs. Even teaching the History of religions is dangerous – who here would voluntarily want Dawkins teaching their History of Christianity course? Knowing the religious bias modern academics impose when teaching Evolution, how could we even consider letting them also teach our religions?

    I agree that there is great value in teaching schoolchildren about various religious beliefs and religious history. I’m just curious as to how you safeguard it from bias and distortion.

  6. 6
    Axel says:

    It’s the old Grauniad trick, the more fragmented religion is shown to be at a surface level, the easier it becomes for atheist polemecists to marginalise Christianity.

    He really ought to have adverted specifically to Christianity. I was told that at Balliol, Arts undergraduates are required to read the Bible from cover to cover, before theye ven begin their studies, for precisely the reason that Christian culture has been hegemonic for so long and over such a broad area ; and not least, of course, in terms of literature, indeed world literature.

    As regards other religions, imho, the only thing the other great mainstream religions can teach Christianity is what it has lost by its trivialisation of its ascetical component, the spirit of mortification, as for instance, evidenced by Islam in its Ramadan fast.

    A wonderful treatment of that as well as of earlier Christian visionaries can be found in Aldous Huxley’s essay on comparative religion, The Perennial Philosophy.

    Incidentally, I came across a quote, both marvelous and hilarious of Aldous’ brother Julian, concerning Aldous as a young child. I’d always assumed Julian to be a dry uninspiring sort of academic, but I see him now in a new, much more fascinating light. Here is the quote :

    ‘As a child, Aldous (Huxley), his brother, Julian, tells us, sat quietly a good deal of the time “contemplating the strangeness of things.”

Leave a Reply