Richard Dawkins vs Bill O'Reilly - Intelligent Design in schools

[The Fake Shemp]

That argument doesn't make any sense.

Teaching children facts is useless, because they'll choose to ignore it? Versus, what, instructing them on religious tenants?

... Education is about the facts. If you think the facts are a waste of time, then you think education is a waste of time.

[duckman2000]

ITT: the world's most limited adults talking about what kids do or do not need to learn in school. smh.

[The Fake Shemp]

ITT: duckman advocates one sentence replies and brings nothing to the discussion. smh.

[brawndolicious]

Okay, learning just the facts when it comes to science or math makes total sense.  In history for example, you have learn the moral motivations of the people as well as the facts to learn why certain events happened.  Same thing with religion, you make a person research the religion and debate using it and they'll be more concerned with the motivations of those people and with where the moral lines get gray.  Teens are probably too horny and filled with ritalin these days to make that idea work though so whatever.

[Madrun Badrun]

Man the interview made me mad.  Dawkins presented himself well this time though. 

[duckman2000]

ITT: duckman advocates one sentence replies and brings nothing to the discussion. smh.

Beats advocating ignorance because of some belief that discussion can't take place without it "blowing up." Seems like that attitude, to some extent, might be to blame for this, and that simply shutting out something that is so critical to any society will only make people more on the edge about it. Like I said, our religion classes were based on information, but it certainly also involved the philosophical end, in addition to cultural and historical. The motivations are pretty critical to understanding why the historical impact is what it is. We had one or two big fights over it when beliefs were questioned, but everyone learned something.

And for the record, I do not trust parents to do what's necessary. These kids will at some point be part of my society, so they had better know more than what their parents want them to know.

[The Fake Shemp]

At what point did I advocate ignorance?

Teaching children facts does not equate ignorance.

[duckman2000]

Not letting them go beyond plain facts inspires ignorance. You could never really understand why the facts are what they are without some idea of the philosophies that caused historical events and laid the groundwork for whole cultures. I'm assuming this attitude is to blame for Clem and Jim being so honestly flabbergasted when they find out that other cultures like their weird and twisted cultures just fine.

[The Fake Shemp]

The motivations are pretty critical to understanding why the historical impact is what it is.

None of that is important to the discussion. For instance, I do not need to have more than a basic understanding of Christianity to know why Christians fought The Crusades.

And for the record, I do not trust parents to do what's necessary. These kids will at some point be part of my society, so they had better know more than what their parents want them to know.

That's a fine opinion and all, but it's not your choice.

[The Fake Shemp]

Not letting them go beyond plain facts inspires ignorance. You could never really understand why the facts are what they are without some idea of the philosophies that caused historical events and laid the groundwork for whole cultures.

Yes, you can. I do not need to learn detailed religious beliefs and values of any particular religion to grasp historical context.

... again, you are trying to do what am nintenho is doing, and advocating religious understanding - which is not the job of the public school system.

[duckman2000]

That's a fine opinion and all, but it's not your choice.

I'll be doing my best to make that my choice. I don't see it as being in the best interest of society, so I'll fight for this in whatever school district my child attends school.

... again, you are trying to do what am nintenho is doing, and advocating religious understanding - which is not the job of the public school system.

And you have yet to provide a compelling argument to support that view. If it involves learning and promotes understanding, it absolutely belongs in a public school system. Propaganda and steering a student towards one or the other, I'll leave that to private schools. Maybe instead of limiting the schools, it should be up to the parents to further educate the child after the classes? I'm up for that challenge.

[The Fake Shemp]

It is your choice certainly to engage in debate, but it is not your choice to dictate that the public school parent someone's child. And that's the beauty of America, is that I should be able to send my kid on a bus to learn facts and not religious values.

[duckman2000]

It is your choice certainly to engage in debate, but it is not your choice to dictate that the public school parent someone's child. And that's the beauty of America, is that I should be able to send my kid on a bus to learn facts and not religious values.

Why not? I attempt to influence the rights of others in every other way related to our society, why on earth should public schooling be any different? For the sake of the society that my family is part of, I suggest that this should be part of the curriculum.

[The Fake Shemp]

And you have yet to provide a compelling argument to support that view. If it involves learning and promotes understanding, it absolutely belongs in a public school system.

Support what view - teaching kids facts instead of religious dogma? The argument is that it's called SCHOOL, not CHURCH.

Propaganda and steering a student towards one or the other, I'll leave that to private schools. Maybe instead of limiting the schools, it should be up to the parents to further educate the child after the classes? I'm up for that challenge.

I've said this from the beginning. I'm all for teaching children the same curriculum bestowed upon me in public school, which included the formation, influential figures and historical/cultural of all world religions.

If a parent wishes to educate their child further on a particular religion, that's within the right. If a student wants to research a particular religion, they should do that to.

Outside the classroom, the sky is the limit.

[The Fake Shemp]

Isnt the beauty of America that Duckman can argue against you though?

I know.

Why not? I attempt to influence the rights of others in every other way related to our society, why on earth should public schooling be any different? For the sake of the society that my family is part of, I suggest that this should be part of the curriculum.

You can argue all you want, but as long as separation of church and state exists, I don't have to worry about that.

And in my opinion, we haven't removed religion from school enough.

[duckman2000]

Support what view - teaching kids facts instead of religious dogma? The argument is that it's called SCHOOL, not CHURCH.

A church is (typically) limited to one view, a good philosophy of religion curriculum should be open to everything. Reference the values and principles of each religion, and take the discussion from there. That's hardly indoctrination.

[The Fake Shemp]

A church is limited to one view, a good philosophy of religion curriculum should be open to everything. Reference the values and principles of each religion, and take the discussion from there. That's hardly indoctrination.

It is if you're raising your child to be agnostic.

[duckman2000]

It is if you're raising your child to be agnostic.

The fact that you are talking about raising a child to be agnostic is pretty telling. The child can make that choice, or never make a choice, for whatever reason. It can also drop out of them, again for any reason. I'll fight it if my kid chooses Christianity, but I'd prefer if she was given access to more philosophies rather than less. Simply removing the religions from their view, that seems to me like you're in fact promoting ignorance.

[The Fake Shemp]

I'm not promoting anything. I'm not even agnostic! And what if a child is agnostic, regardless of parental influence, and finds himself alienated in such a class? What then?

... The fact that you are willing to refute another viewpoint is telling. Religion has no place in public schools and even the execution of what you are referring to is completely impractical.

It's just you, trying to make the government parent other people's children, instead of talking to the parents themselves.

But I expect that kind of argument from ignorant religious zealots.

[duckman2000]

I'm not promoting anything. I'm not even agnostic! And what if a child is agnostic, regardless of parental influence, and finds himself alienated in such a class? What then?

Why would an agnostic person feel alienated in a class that covers all religions, and preferably non-religion as well? Uninterested, that I could understand. If the child is very confused, then the child can talk to its parents about it. I'd much rather have that, then a bunch of ignorants running around making big decisions based on limited understanding.

I'm aggressively atheist, but that doesn't mean that I want a school system that avoids teaching things because they are too loaded. Probably because I consider that attitude to be part reason why it is so loaded in the first place. Seems a bit similar to the conservatives that want to ban sexual education in schools because of some belief that talking about it will make the kids horny and wild. :/

[M3wThr33]

One of my favorite classes in college was Mythology, which, thanks to the crackpot teacher, was actually a religion class that covered all religions, and something about trees being all-important.

I always find learning about religions interesting, but not when I'm forced to choose something I don't believe.

[Oblivion]

What a stupid fucking argument.

"You admitted that science doesn't have all the answers, therefore the solution to filling those gaps is to rely on Christianity, one of hundreds of religions that also provide no proof about God, but we're damn sure it's the correct one!"

[The Fake Shemp]

I'm not necessarily against that, Cohen. ... but I don't think we should be having religious discussion in school.

Why would an agnostic person feel alienated in a class that covers all religions, and preferably non-religion as well?

So, in a class that apparently is designed to promote discussion of religious beliefs and values, a minority - especially a non-religious one - won't feel alienated whatsoever when all his classmates talk about their religion?

Did you ever go to public school, at all?

I'm aggressively atheist, but that doesn't mean that I want a school system that avoids teaching things because they are too loaded. Probably because I consider that attitude to be part reason why it is so loaded in the first place.

It's not ignorance, your idea is impractical.

Who decides the syllabus? Who decides how much of a religion and how little is taught? What if one religion doesn't like the a particular aspect being discussed (let's see how touchy Islam gets)? What if parents do not want their children to learn about religion? What about instructors, who themselves might be religious?

[The Fake Shemp]

Also, where do you draw the line on what religions to educate on? Do you fringe elements, like Scientology? What about the Church of Satan?

[duckman2000]

One of my favorite classes in college was Mythology, which, thanks to the crackpot teacher, was actually a religion class that covered all religions, and something about trees being all-important.

I always find learning about religions interesting, but not when I'm forced to choose something I don't believe.

There was no distinction between religion and mythology in our school. The major religions were referred to as such, but with the exception of one Jewish lady who spent her short time there ripping on Islam, Arab culture and Palestinians in particular, there was never a sense of bias. And that is where the parents should come in. Instead of limiting it for everyone, parents should simply make sure that the teaching are balanced and without bias. My dad heard about this Jewish lady, and I believe he ripped the Principal of the school a new one over it.

Wondering though, should we also not teach politics in school? After all, politics have a strong philosophical base, so if you want your child to grow up without a preference for one political system over another, we probably shouldn't teach politics.

So, in a class that apparently is designed to promote discussion of religious beliefs and values, a minority - especially a non-religious one - won't feel alienated whatsoever when all his classmates talk about their religion?

Why would they be alienated? There is most certainly room for non-religion in a class about religion. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have multi-page religious threads on boards that are filled with atheists and religious nutters. Let it be heated if it must. And at worst, it will be uninteresting, much like any other given class in school if you're not interested in the subject.

[The Fake Shemp]

Most school systems teach politics as it relates to the government, not as it relates to your own personal ideology.

And even that's been a hot topic for some parents who think instructors exhibit liberal or conservative bias.

[duckman2000]

And yeah, we discussed occultism in our classes. It was a fringe subject that I made bigger because it interested me. The same went for the largely non-religious Church of Satan brand of satanism, and comparisons to other types of satanism.

[Oblivion]

O'reilly's argument about believing Christianity is the correct religion cause of how Jesus is still remembered to this day is pretty dumb too. By that logic we should be worshipping the likes of Socrates and Plato as well.

[The Fake Shemp]

Why would they be alienated? There is most certainly room for non-religion in a class about religion. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have multi-page religious threads on boards that are filled with atheists and religious nutters. Let it be heated if it must. And at worst, it will be uninteresting, much like any other given class in school if you're not interested in the subject.

Public school is not the Internet. If you don't think there won't be severe cases of alienation depending on religious denomination or lack thereof in a public school (especially in various parts of the continental United States), you're being naive.

Again, did you ever go to public school?

In a perfect society, would I love religious harmony, a complete absence of racism and cultural understanding? Sure.

... but we don't live in one of those, and your solution is not only impractical, but could dangerously erode self-esteem for a few minorities depending on its execution - if not lead to outright persecution. Religious discussion might benefit children to some degree, but it won't dispel ignorance, bad parenting, etc.

As long as parents can preach their religion and imprint their prejudices on their child, bringing religious discussion into public schools is asking for trouble.

So your next solution is to, what, send the parents to parenting school?

[The Fake Shemp]

O'reilly's argument about believing Christianity is the correct religion cause of how Jesus is still remembered to this day is pretty dumb too. By that logic we should be worshipping the likes of Socrates and Plato as well.

His argument really irked me, because he made it a philosophical one... which has absolutely nothing to do with science. I think it's unanimous that Jesus was a pretty groovy philosopher, but I was unaware that he had the answers to the universe!

[Stoney Mason]

O'reilly's argument about believing Christianity is the correct religion cause of how Jesus is still remembered to this day is pretty dumb too. By that logic we should be worshipping the likes of Socrates and Plato as well.

His show is a nightly exercise in bad logic, jingoism, strawman argumemts, bogey men, and the occasional Dennis Miller "I stopped being funny the moment 9/11 happened" appearance.

[brawndolicious]

I think it's pretty hard to be a religious minority in the US and not be interested in how other forms of religion function, even if you're not religious.  This stuff about alienating that "minority" kid doesn't really make sense considering most kids are pretty politically correct in the classroom and the teacher will get reamed if they don't teach the religion chapters in an unbiased and respectful way.  Yeah, I can understand momentary discomfort in the same way seeing an STD cartoon is uncomfortable but that'll go away after a couple days.

[Himu]

although I never managed to listen to a damn word in church in 10 years. Always zoned out and wondered why there were reading from a book that was so old compared to the school books and singing songs that didn't rhyme.

Slightly off topic but one of the most boring, mind numbing, dreadful experiences as a child was being dragged to Church every week by my mother as the preacher droned on for hours. It felt like time actually stopped during those periods...

Fortunately my mother had a bad experience with that particular church so she stopped going and stopped making us go although in her later years she has gotten religious again.

I'd always be pissed I had to go to church because I wanted to stay home and watch Doug/Rugrats/Ren and Stimpy.

[Hitler Stole My Potato]

O'reilly's argument about believing Christianity is the correct religion cause of how Jesus is still remembered to this day is pretty dumb too. By that logic we should be worshipping the likes of Socrates and Plato as well.

His show is a nightly exercise in bad logic, jingoism, strawman argumemts, bogey men, and the occasional Dennis Miller "I stopped being funny the moment 9/11 happened" appearance.

And Dawkins just sits there and takes it, more or less, and that's what irks me about him whenever I see him on television to present his point of view - especially on Fox News.  He's too well mannered, too intelligent, and too polite for the rhetorical shouting matches that constitutes most of America's political/news programs today.  You need someone like Christopher Hitchens to put them in their fucking place.  Even drunk off his ass the man could destroy ORielly in a theological and/or scientific debate. Of course "debate" and the O'Rielly Factor are rarely, if ever, congruent.