AIBU to think we need more ^inclusive^ education?

[LoveFoolMe]

AIBU to think we need more inclusive education? If children in a multicultural society such as the UK are educated together surely this promotes more tolerance and better mutual understanding.

So these proposals worry me:

Call to end limit on religious free schools

Considering how divisive and rigid religious attitudes can be, I think it's time to bring children from faith schools into mainstream schools and to encourage these children to mix with more diverse cultures.

Secular schools can still provide fact-based religious education in the classroom and would probably teach their students about a greater range of religions than a faith school would. Parents could, of course, provide a more personal approach to religion for their children outside of school hours if they wanted to.

Let's not further segregate our children by religion.

AIBU to think that reducing (rather than increasing) the number of faith schools in the UK would be far better for our children and far better for our society?

Rogue, I think that's a pretty tough statement to support across the gamut of all religions.

Is your video intended as a counter to the Argument from Design Alan?

I can't believe we're still talking about eyes.

Expert derailment, dawn. I totally fell for it.

Sorry I posted it on the wrong thread.

But yes it shows how the eye evolved in different organisms through natural selection and the model of survival of the fittest.

Eep, I didn't even notice!!

FWIW - Most religions have no problem with natural selection. There are many religious biologists, geologists etc. Argument from design - ie systems are incredibly complicated and apparently finely tuned therefore they must have been 'designed' (by a creator) - therefore belief in a God. Counter argument - natural selection is a combination of chance mutations of genes and survival of the fittest over a long period of time - natural selection is the 'creator'. 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Yup, that demolished my faith in a god Alan. I was an atheist for a long time. Now I think it's irrational to be sure there's no god. We have no evidence either way. Agnosticism for me now!

My Christian friend believes in a god for exactly the same reason I stopped believing! She thinks the big bang, something from nothing is incredible. Now I know there's the Q - how do you explain a God? Well, you don't! That's fine. How do you explain infinity or anything before the big bang? Very very difficult to imagine. It's all a splendid mystery IMO. What fun. (There are plenty of religious physicists btw.)

You can't argue with a feeling. Celebrate it! Get in touch with your feelings through prayer/meditation/music/running. Your feelings decide your behaviour. Thinking will take you a long way, but only so far.

Now I think it's irrational to be sure there's no god.

I can't speak for any other atheist on this thread but that's never been my position. I just can't see there's any reason to believe in the gods that men have believed in due to the claims their religion makes not being backed up by reality. If there is a God who is interested in us I don't think it has revealed itself to us, and as such it can't be that bothered with human affairs. But no I don't say there is no God, more that I have no cause to believe in the ones on offer.

But I also used to be a Christian so my interest in the debate here is about understanding my own beliefs. I'd like to appreciate how I was able to make it make sense.

Don't you think that when you're young there's no reason to question it? Some people question it and some people don't.... I used to think that 'believers' are naturally optimistic and people of no faith aren't.

People convert as adults. I know someone who has become a Christian despite an upbringing by agnostics/atheists. I know someone else who converted from Buddhism to Christianity. Honestly.

My own loss of faith was partly intellectual - blind watchmaker argument. But also partly a feeling that a god who took an interest in individuals just seemed unlikely, in fact implausible.

I think if you do have faith - you can deliberately nurture it.

I can't speak for any other atheist on this thread but that's never been my position.

I don't know of any atheist that holds that position either. I think it's a common misconception about atheists.

Religion aims to make us more than just decent and self-aware. It aims to generate within us compassion and generosity as a default-setting, to have a sense of peace, acceptance of the things we can't change, faith that things will work out okay if your intentions are 'good,' mindfulness of our mortality and no fear of it, a deep understanding that striving for gratification will not make us happy, a love of life.

is any of that actually true though?

What I mean by that is that for many people things aren't ok. Some people don't even live long enough to have the thought that things are ok, forget living it. Some people have their 5 year olds die horribly, at the hands of another human, who goes unpunished.

I think it does give a sense of false hope. We see injustice and we can't control it, so we hope god will balance the scales in the afterlife. Unfortunately, we have no evidence this happens, so perhaps we should take action in this life.

Is any of that actually true though

Em yes.

We see injustice and we can't control it, so we hope god will balance the scales

Religious people often work hard to stop injustices. But also to be forgiving - which has been shown in studies to be good for mental health - and to accept that there are things we can't change. Religious people don't have to be doormats.

Some people don't even live long enough to have the thought that things are ok They may nevertheless have many moments where they experience a feeling of well-being. Religions never claim to cure all the ills of the world. No-one says that if everyone led a righteous/pure/moral/ethical/perfect life there would be no illness or natural disaster. Hideous things happen that are horribly difficult. Anger and hate or bitterness will cause suffering on top of suffering. IMO no-one really goes unpunished for acts of violence. Even the psychopath who doesn't feel guilt and goes unpunished will 'suffer' from not having the capacity for empathy and is incapable of vicarious joy and the fruits of empathy. S/he will only have superficial relationships. They will only ever have a lesser half-existence. Someone with a conscience who commits a murder or other act of violence or cruelty will suffer from having to live the rest of their life with the guilt. How hard it must be for them to ever have peace. The people who love them will suffer too. It's a desperately sad state of affairs for everyone involved.

false hope hope is hope though. We all die - a hopeful life is happier than a hopeless life. Who is to say what is false?

Religious people often work hard to stop injustices

yup. Indisputable.

and to accept that there are things we can't change

not sure why you either need god or religion for that. There are clearly things we all can't change. Why some of your other points on religion (it gives hope) make sense, I don't understand how this possibly helps.

Religions never claim to cure all the ills of the world.

that's good, because this is clearly false.

IMO no-one really goes unpunished for acts of violence. Even the psychopath who doesn't feel guilt and goes unpunished will 'suffer' from not having the capacity for empathy and is incapable of vicarious joy and the fruits of empathy.

Really? you think Hitler and Pol Pot were adequately punished? Because they suffered some kind of inner anguish? I think you will get some pretty serious disagreement on that.

Bad people often get worldly goodies. I think they often deserve a punishment worse than inner torment.

Who is to say what is false?

When religion talks about anything testable, which isn't very often now because it got some many things wrong, you can of course test it.

Hitler committed suicide and Pol Pot is thought to have either committed suicide or been murdered. There are natural consequences to every action and thought. What benefit do you think it brings anyone to inflict more suffering on the world? There's no point in punishment in and of itself unless its intention is restorative or in the case o imprisonment to protect the public from dangerous individuals.

It won't bring back a murder victim. The victim who can forgive - I'm not claiming it's not very difficult - is in a better place than someone looking for vengeance. The victim who doesn't hate will be happier/peaceful than someone who hates. Hatred doesn't feel pleasant. and what a waste of time and energy. Forgiveness has been studied in scientific studies and shown to be beneficial. Religions understand this. To put it another way you can spend time being angry/resentful/ jealous/bitter - whether it be because someone has profited materially through unethical behaviour or for something else - with the result that the amount of suffering in the world is increased - or you can enjoy the things you do have. 'Peace and goodwill to all men'/'May all beings be well and happy' - I don't know any other religious prayers - is healthier and happier. No-one says it's easy to feel like that though. But religious practices and scriptures cultivate this feeling.

false hope either it's hope or it isn't. No-one has the ability to decide whether it is or isn't false. Or what happens after death.

a punishment worse than inner torment torment is pretty bad! Material things won't release from you it.

Forgiveness has been studied in scientific studies and shown to be beneficial. Religions understand this.

This is the big problem - the first part of the statement is supportable, the second absolutely isn't, across all religions, in both the theory and the practice.

Others have mentioned the University of Chicago study that found religious children were less sharing, less forgiving, more judgemental and favoured harsher punishments for wrongdoing than their counterparts from non-religious homes.

"Others have mentioned the University of Chicago study that found religious children were less sharing, less forgiving, more judgemental and favoured harsher punishments for wrongdoing than their counterparts from non-religious homes."

is that this study Radlett : news.uchicago.edu/article/2015/11/05/religious-upbringing-associated-less-altruism-study-finds

on being more judgemental and favouring harsher punishment it was regarding anti social behaviour, in the study they had the children watchshort animations where one character pushed or shoved another on purpose or accidentally, and were asked how mean the behaviour was and amount of punishment the character deserved...

"Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses."

wouldn't that actually be a plus in the classroom environment because it would mean peer pressure would come into play within a class group in order to make them function together better. requiring less authority or intervention from outside (say the teacher) as intra group regulation is active within the group. giving more time for teaching and less time for babysitting as an earlier poster put it.

and classroom behaviour and morale is a huge problem in schools, many teachers suffer huge stress and quit or leave work early, especially secondary, because of difficult behaviour in classrooms. i mentioned in earlier posts about the pressure pupils and peers can exert on each other either goading one another to more rudeness to the teacher or the opposite, censoring each other for deviant class behaviour.

as for lower altruism, it seems to become opposite as they turn to adulthood, at least in the UK, with religious followers giving more than atheists.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/21/muslims-give-most_n_3630830.html

the results of which were acknowledged even by our own current prime minister. but hey, who's counting

Jassy's just fine, moonstruck...

I'm wasn't commenting on what behaviour was better in the classroom (or in life), simply questioning rogue's statement that religions give some kind of unique insight into or pathway to forgiveness, altruism or kindness.

Is altruism confined to charitable giving?

The findings of the university of Chicago study didn't match those of several other similar studies apparently.

Charitable giving is an established practice in many (most) religions.

I don't know if religions give a unique insight into forgiveness, altruism or kindness but they have an emphasis on them and provide a clear pathway.

Is there a difference between altruism and kindness?