Well, time for the obligitory religion debate. No, its not going to be "Do you believe in religion?" or anything along those lines. What the debate shall be about is whether religion should be taught in schools. My view, no, religion should not be practiced, or taught in schools these days. Not because they are not my beliefs, but because teaching and practicing religion in a school always runs the risk of offending others, or submitting yourself to persecution by fellow schoolmates. That said, I do believe that there should be some education on the subject of religion, such as a subject teaching religious history, however such a matter would be required to be strictly moderated as any teacher can be subject to their own beliefs, and as such you run the risk of students being brainwashed because the teacher strongly believes in a specific religion. I do believe that people have the right to know about all forms of religion, but I don't believe that people can be mature enough to give an unbiased teaching of them.
I think it's really important to teach religion in schools. It means a lot to know about a certain religion when it comes to respecting others. And yeah, teachers can brainwash, but you just need to find a some good teachers that go through some tests or something. And I don't think anyone would brainwash kids, they couldn't without getting caught at least. But yeah, I think it's important, I'm glad that I have religion as a subject in school, not because I'm religious myself, but because it's important to know something about the different religions now that it fills the world even today
It depends on what you mean by "teach religion". If you mean educate children on one particular religion, teaching them that the beliefs of this religion are facts and right, then no, absolutely not. If you're asking if children should be taught about all of the religions, the differences between them, the history and beliefs of those religions and tolerence for them, then I think so, yes. It certainly couldn't do the world any harm to have a few more tolerant and knowledgable people in it. And I suppose if any parents are offended by this, if they want their children to be raised believing that their faith is the one true way, then they should have the option to pull the child from the class.
I meant the first option And I agree with you 100% on the second one. Religion should be TAUGHT, in the sense that children can understand different religions, and know their history and belief system. What I mean here, is teaching children in what to believe
Oh, in that case absolutely not. If people want their kids to learn about religion they can send them to Sunday school or the non-Christian equivalent. Tax payers should not be funding schools to teach religion, particularly when the idea of things as basic as right and wrong vary so widely between people, even people of the same religion.
I'm all against religion being taught in school. It will end up with the schools hiring teachers from a certain religion, and that teacher forcing the religion down on the student. Okay, maybe that's a bit extreme, but I'm sure people would rather have their own religion and find out about it themselves, after all, Christianity is taught way too much in the UK, if you ask me. EDIT:// Also, I believe it should be an optional class to take.
well it should not be taught in a public school scenario... i think its against the rules to do so. But they have every right to express the religion if it is a private school built on foundations of a religion.
Unfortunately, it is legal for a public school to teach about religion and what not, my school does it, but they have also told us if we do not wish to go to this class, we do not have to, as it's not on our GCSE thing.
I completely agree that it should be an optional class. However, I do think it's important for kids to learn and understand from a non-biased source that there are other religions and beliefs in the world and that they should tolerate them. Although perhaps it would be better to call it a cultural class. Teach children about foreign cultures and customs, and their religions, and how their religions effect their culture and vice versa. Provided children aren't being taught by people with obvious bias towards a religion of their own choice, it could be very very good for them.
I think it should be an optional class, or atleast just teach it in Grade 1 to Grade 6, then after that I think that kids understood what religion is... I'm in Grade 8 and I have religion classes in my school, and I don't learn that much. The teacher doesn't have anything to teach us so we just watch movies =3
I, personally, don't think it should be imposed in schools. Especially nowadays, with so many athiests. Without getting into a great religion debate or anything, I'll just say that if you don't believe in something, it's annoyingly horrible to have these people talk to you about it and impose it on you. That being said, it should be optional or summat.
well if that's the case evolution by your argument also can not be thought. "I'll just say that if you don't believe in something, it's annoyingly horrible to have these people talk to you about it and impose it on you." allot of ppl dont believe evolution... if you want to get real hard that means that ALLOT of science canot be thought in schools and there mainly theorys .. gotta apply same rules to everything
A theory has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. So it's essentially fact, to an extent. Religion, namely Catholicism, are based on fabricated stories surrounding Jesus that were not created until ~53 AD. Now, Jesus died when he was mid-30's, I believe. So that's around 20 years until the first book was written in the New testament. 20 years. That's 20 years without mobile phones, internet, or any solid record-keeping material save for paper and charcoal. In those 20 years the story could have been fabricated beyond belief. Comparing evolution to religion is silly. One is theory, one is fabrication.
A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things: 1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and 2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class. The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. 1) wrong def on theory its a best estimated GUESS 2) evolution is far from bond a reasonable doubt it has many holes in it *missing link* *rate of elevation* to name 2 of many
So you're saying evolution is a hypothesis? Because a hypothesis is an educated guess. I think a lot of scientists would make a big deal out of that. lol.
Religion should definitely be taught at school. It's just one of those things that is so prevalent that not having any knowledge of it would actually be a setback. The bible is the most published book in the world and religious allusions are everywhere in life. Therefore I think that learning it for the history and literary knowledge is a necessity. However I do not agree with teaching that promotes or biases people to religion. I also believe in Locke's Tabula Rasa theory that says people are born with a blank mind and develop through experience and external influences. So something like "required" prayer in school or teaching religion could easily influence a child. And Religion shouldn't be taught until a child is older and more adept at making his/her own decisions on what to believe. haha dark...I completely agree with you evolution and religion should be compared equally will - Because you to agree with religion you think that it should not be allowed in school. Then what about those people who don't believe in evolution? Of course evolution is an hypothesis. It's yet to be proved.
Because the theory of evolution is far more grounded in realistic, critical thinking and science than the traditional magic sky giant explanation. However, if children/their parents find the theory of evolution offensive to their beliefs and do not want to even hear "the other side of the debate", then they should by all means have the option to not learn about it. It's more of a theory than a hypothesis, really. It may seem like the difference is splitting hairs, but a hypothesis is something that you have little evidence to back up, an educated guess. The "Adam and Eve" scenario is a hypothesis, as there is absolutely no evidence to support it except ancient texts written by men with very little understanding of the world. Evolution is based on indisputable fossil records, DNA and a clearly charted path of development that continues to be evident even in recorded history. It is a theory, and one that is all but proven.
It's more of a theory than a hypothesis, really. It may seem like the difference is splitting hairs, but a hypothesis is something that you have little evidence to back up, an educated guess. The "Adam and Eve" scenario is a hypothesis, as there is absolutely no evidence to support it except ancient texts written by men with very little understanding of the world. Evolution is based on indisputable fossil records, DNA and a clearly charted path of development that continues to be evident even in recorded history. It is a theory, and one that is all but proven.[/quote] Correct. That's what I was trying to get at. I'm just saying that fabrication should not be compared to a theory that has been backed up by evidence. You can't really compare something that has almost no fact-based (primary) evidence to something that has been evidenced by heaps of DNA testing, etc. That being said, if you do want to compare religion to evolution, and there are actually people who believe in creationism (which I think is a load of bollocks), then it probably could be taught on the same level as the sort of science-fiction that both of them seem to be.
Well the thing is, while I was reading through this thread the first time, Will referred to evolution as a theory as did Dark. Then when Will replied to Dark, he used the word hypothesis. I just assume you all were using theory and hypothesis interchangeably. Random bits of wikipedia... How many times has science been wrong? How many times has physics, the very study or our world, been completely turned upside down because of a new discovery? And are you calling history a fabrication? Oh and just fyi...I'm pro-evolution, atheist (not even agnostic), and liberal. But sometimes, it's good to try and argue the other side of things.
How many times has science been wrong? How many times has physics, the very study or our world, been completely turned upside down because of a new discovery? And are you calling history a fabrication? Oh and just fyi...I'm pro-evolution, atheist (not even agnostic), and liberal. But sometimes, it's good to try and argue the other side of things. [/quote] I'm not calling history, as a whole, utter fabrication. I'm calling most of what Catholics believe in fabrication, as that would be the typical religion being taught in schools. In addition that: a Pope, himself, said 'It has served us well, this myth of Christ'. That kind of leads me to believe that the entire foundations of the Catholic religion are fabricated stories of a figure who may, or may not, have existed. And I like arguing the other sides too sometimes it is quite fun.