Any agnostics/atheists send their child(ren) to a faith school? How do you handle the inevitable discrepencies between home/school beliefs?

[frenchtoast]

Like this: DS (4) at 4am this morning: "Mum, do you know why a robin's tummy is red? To remind us of Jesus' blood." Mum: "Ah, right, yes that's what some people believe. And other people believe different things. What do you think?"

DS goes to this school because it is a good school, we like their flexible attendance philosophy for reception, it's small, it's two minutes' walk away (and the only school within walking distance) and he knows almost all the children - so given that nothing's ideal, a pretty good option.

And because it's a Church-aided rather than full-on faith school, I didn't think it would be too full-on, Christianity-wise; I was told that many faiths would be learned about. But clearly one is taught as THE faith.

I want DS to know about all these beliefs and make up his own mind about what he believes: he doesn't have to believe the same as me or school. But I'm a bit uncomfortable about four-year-olds being taught that a robin's tummy is red to remind us of Jesus' blood.

Any reflections? TIA.

I really don't see why I should respect someone telling my child to believe in god any more than I would respect someone running through the town centre screaming that a pink spotty dragon is coming and will eat us all. To me that is just two different sorts of the exact same kind of folklore.

Respect for people yes, I have basic respect for people as individuals and I will show them respect and indeed respect their right to believe folklore if they want to. But if they start telling me (or children in a state learning institution) that is is true then I don't respect that at all, why should I? I totally agree with SGB's line "Believe whatever bullshit you like but don't expect anyone else to take it seriously". That's not disrespectful to people, it's simply pointing out that all these differing, indeed often destructively opposing, and totally evidence-free beliefs can't be taken seriously, how can they? Not by anyone who is looking at the evidence.

It's not disrespectful of other people to think that some of their opinions/beliefs are fucking ridiculous, as long as you don't follow them down the road shouting at them about how wrong they are. I have enountered people who seriously think that the bloke who wrote the Da Vinci Code is a literary genius, and quite a few of my friends will spend hours watching men chase a ball about in a field and care about which of the men kicks it the furthest, or whatever. I think these are dumb opinions/interests/hobbies, and don't want to hear about them, but don't rant at my friends non-stop - I just say that I'm not interested or don't agree and we talk about something else.
The reason why I think it's so important to speak about supersition with general contempt is that it enables those of the superstitious who are less benevolent to claim privileged status for the crap they are peddling, and to demand entitlement to harass other people with it.

your acceptable players commment could as well be politics.

everyone has an opinion on politics, or abortion or a many other things, its how we chose our words when talking to someone who obviously holds their belief highly - whether we believe it or not.

common courtasy at the very least. and it is lacking here

And you haven't grasped my point custy. That religious belief is a choice, there's a mountain of scientific evidence against most of it, and what you choose to believe and rituals you choose to follow is not anything like your race, gender or sexuality. Those things are inherent parts of you that you didn't choose, that harm no one and that people don't go around trying to convince other people that they should be too. Big, big difference.

And you haven't grasped my point custy. That religious belief is a choice, there's a mountain of scientific evidence against most of it, and what you choose to believe and rituals you choose to follow is not anything like your race, gender or sexuality. Those things are inherent parts of you that you didn't choose, that harm no one and that people don't go around trying to convince other people that they should be too.

i take it no proof on god then?

i think we are agreeing inpart, my argument is that i think the language used against people who have faith on this thread is outragous in a way that woulndt be tolerated about other subjects.

you say that you wouldnt use such language in real life - but its ok here? part way there i think.

if you read further down, i agree that all schools should be non dom, i just wish all the non doms would walk with their feet.

bum

oh i have grasped your point, in all its finery, you are deliberatley missing mine i think

So, Custy, if someone sincerely and profoundly believes that people of a certain ethnic group are inferior, or that gay people should be executed, should those beliefs be treated with 'common courtesy'? Or if a person believes that aromatherapy is all that's needed to cure their child's broken leg?
On an open internet forum 'Bullshit' is a perfectly valid response when someone is spouting bullshit. Why should idiots that one hasn't met and isnt't likely to meet be indulged when they make ludicrous claims and statements?

You don't have to prove the non-existence of god using science, just like you don't have to prove the non-existence of spotty pink dragons - there's no sign of them. If science busied itself with proving that what there's no sign of doesn't exist, there would be an infinite list of objects that they would have to prove didn't exist, which would take up all their time. Science is for studying, observing and understanding what is there, not what apparently isn't.

I agree it cannot be proven that god doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that beliefs based on zero evidence deserve my respect.

has someone said they believe in such things?

if the aim of your argument is to try and make me defend all religeons and their ills, historically through the ages until present day- i am sorry i must dissapoint you, for i cannot, i have my own beliefs. i just ask for courtesy on subjects such as this. when one resorts to such methods , its not a debate anymore as i have learned through experience.

i wouldnt say anything remotely similar about your atheism or agnostacism. no name calling here. and thats my issue.

Twas a perfectly straightforward and blunt point, not a fine one, even if I did repeat it.

oh i was only refering to your mountain of evidence that YOU mentioned earlier.

I really don't think I have done any namecalling. I do think religion is nonsense. Because it doesn't make sense - factual sense, logical sense, any kind of rational sense. That's just a fact. I haven't slagged off religious people, but if I can't, from a science POV, point out that religious beliefs are in fact nonsensical and nothing to do with knowledge and facts, that would make me very uncomfortable. I'm on the side of science, rationality and evidence, and I can't report what I see? But adults in a position of responsibility to teach children about the world are free to tell them god exists?

There's a mountain of evidence for non-religious explanations of reality. Not against the existence of god as such - because as I said, that's not the business of science.

(But there is a lot of evidence against many religious dogmas, eg creationism - which was what I was referring to.)

i wonder how scientists who believe in god reconcile that- i am sure you can guess at the explaination.

your previous post was a better one expressing your thoughts without the crude offensive language - and thats the crux - being offensive about something that is very personal. perhaps that was forgotten in the rucus? that ones faith is a very very personal thing and to a person with faith it is extremely important. and its the courtesy and good manners i suppose.

were the original argument about whether god exists, then perhaps- perhaps such comments could be expected. but the language used to describe the beliefe system of people with faith was (considering how personal it is) rather uncalled for.

i agree that creationism is untrue. - do you have specifics on the other things you mention or shall i accept the sweeping statement?

however i think there must be a recognition that science doesn't have all the answers either. the theory of evolution, is erm..a theory!

I would like to know when I was crude and offensive and I will apologise.

I'm not wriggling out of it (in fact I wish I didn't get dragged into this stuff as much as I do - I can't help myself) but I'm not going to list all the stuff religious people believe that's contrary to the scientific evidence, I would be here all night and I need a bath. Anyway you don't have to believe in creationism, a lot of other people still do.

argh that all the answers line! Of course science doesn't have all the answers, I never said it did. the point of science is that it is aware of that very fact, unlike religion in which belief cannot be challenged. Science continues to question and look for evidence and change its theories.

look SL, if you dont recognise that you were, fine - i amnot trawling through posts to pick quotes that you can argue or not - i have to do to bed.

i guess i will have to accept the general sweeping scientific statement rather than specifics. 0 i know other people do - i can't debate that can i!

To return to the OP, one other methodology is to ensure your children have lots of exposure to all sorts of different myths and legends, and to talk to them about why it is that people tell stories about creation, gods etc. We have got some really nice collected myths and stories from all over the world, and they are a good length for bedtime reading. However it is interesting to observe childrens thinking on this front. Our non-dom community school had quite a bit of religion through the back door, as the old Headmaster was friends with a local vicar (at least we think this is why, as when the headteacher changed the vicar disappeared from the scene) and he visited frequently. ds who is a contrary child and likes his own views decided to adopt aetheism along dh's robust approach (on being told by ds that his teacher told him we were not desended from monkeys, told him to say to her that "that's a load of fetid dingos kidneys". ds was both horrified and delighted at this, but I doubt relayed it back). dd on the other hand told dh that he was wrong, and that she did believe in God and Jesus, because Father xxx said so, and he owned a big house (she had visited the church).

THe whole, point, custardo, is that rational people don't have to respect superstitious bullshit. IF the superstitous are offended, that;s their problem and maybe sooner or later they will learn some sense.

Just to clarify: that;s not a call to go into temples or shrines or whatever or stand outside them pointing and laughin, merely that in a public place (which an internet forum is), there is absoluely no reason why the rational shouldn't call a load of bollocks a load of bollocks when it's presented to them.

Of course science hasn't proved there is no god, as it is impossible to prove there is "no" anything.

However, being unable to prove (passively) there is "no" X is not necessarily a good reason for believing (actively) in X. After all, science is also unable to "prove" there is no Zeus, Ra, Thor, Fairy Queen, Puff the Magic Dragon, Celestial Teapot or Great Green Arkleseizure.

Just because something is theoretically possible, that doesn't necessarily make it likely.

I have often been accused of being too "rationalist" in my approach and not allowing for mystery and imagination. This is untrue - I love mystery and imagination, as long as they stay in the realms of enjoyable fiction and do not attempt to impinge on real life, and as long as those who are deluded into believing they are real do not try to dictate how I should live my life. (This includes influencing my school choices.)

And I think you have to be rational or it is impossible to argue. If you agree there is a supernatural explanation, where do you go from there? It's impossible to have a logical argument. Believe in the irrational by all means if it is what you want. But be aware that this automatically gives you a red card from my argument.