Should schools be required to teach courses on atheism and agnosticism?

[shira]

I ask this in response to those who think courses on religion in public schools would be a good idea. A happen to agree, but it seems to me that to remain truly balanced when addressing the question of faith, we would want to include all sides of the question.

So in addition to the obvious, mainstream deist religions, I think we'd also want the course to dedicate a week or so to atheism, another week to agnosticism, another to Satanism, another to Voodoo and the occult, etc. This would provide a truly "fair and balanced" view of the beliefs held be people.

The purpose of the course would, after all, be to educate, not to indoctrinate.

So, whaddaya think?

 

[sandorski]

Why not post this in the thread on the subject?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Why not post this in the thread on the subject?

That was certainly a reasonable option. But it occurred to me that the debate is always about whether or not to teach religion. The debate SHOULD be about the teaching of belief systems. And I thought that deserved its own thread (with a provocative title, of course).

Edit: I should also add that the Constitution's establishment clause isn't just about whether the government should establish one religion versus another. It's also about whether the government should encourage religion in general versus NO religion, or a belief in God versus atheism, etc.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: shira
I ask this in response to those who think courses on religion in public schools would be a good idea. A happen to agree, but it seems to me that to remain truly balanced when addressing the question of faith, we would want to include all sides of the question.

So in addition to the obvious, mainstream deist religions, I think we'd also want the course to dedicate a week or so to atheism, another week to agnosticism, another to Satanism, another to Voodoo and the occult, etc. This would provide a truly "fair and balanced" view of the beliefs held be people.

The purpose of the course would, after all, be to educate, not to indoctrinate.

So, whaddaya think?

I don't doubt that Satanism, Voodoo and the occult are generally in the same category as world religions. That is--the irrational realm of metaphysical human creations of the mind, based on no objective evidence--but except the imagination.

Atheism and agnosticism do not belong to this irrational category, strictly speaking.

 

[imported_Condor]

If they had a course that compared belief systems across the board and did it uniformly.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Agnostic week would be kind of boring, no?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Condor
If they had a course that compared belief systems across the board and did it uniformly.

Which I quite sincerely believe would be a GOOD thing. The problem is, I think many of those pushing for courses on religion have an ulterior motive.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
Agnostic week would be kind of boring, no?

Actually, agnosticism is a very sophisticated epistomological position: The existence of the ultimate cause of things (usually taken as God) is unknown and unknowable, as is the essential nature of things.

Note that this is far, far different from the "I'm really not sure if God does or does not exist" definition that most people give agnosticism.

Note that a true agnostic can strongly believe in God, or strongly disbelieve, or anything in between. The stress is on the word "believe" rather than "know". An atheist is not usually an agnostic because atheists DO claim to know that God does not exist.

Getting students to understand the concept of agnosticism would actually be quite enlightening.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
Agnostic week would be kind of boring, no?

Maybe that would only take an hour.

 

[Rhin0]

How about NONE OF THEM? Save it for a college religion class and hope you don't have some hippy wack-job teaching the class, that way maybne you can get a fair view of all you list.


My view is:

I have no problem with anyones religion (I am christian) but so many people just go too far. I am so tired of dealing with bible thumpers and athiests. Many athiests are no better than the bible thumpers, they just lack the bible. I honestly don't know which is worse.

-You're christian? GREAT don't go to SLC and try to convert mormons or go to Israel convert jews either. There isn't anyone who likes the aggresive attempts at conversion or unwelcome preaching,

-Your're an athiest? You don't believe in any god? What does it matter to you then? Get off your high horse and STFU.

 

[magomago]

nope~ best left as a class to teach in a university. too much bias to be introduced by professors who won't look at things objectively, or twist things slightly. I could think of a few teachers at my old HS where they would teach aethism is a tool of the devil~ my school did offer a world religions class and luckily we had a great guy who taught it.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Condor
If they had a course that compared belief systems across the board and did it uniformly.

Which I quite sincerely believe would be a GOOD thing. The problem is, I think many of those pushing for courses on religion have an ulterior motive.

I distrust anyone who espouses a true believer attitude. There is faith in a creator (or karma, or whatever your belief is) (some believe strongly in not believing) and then there is belief in a church or a system with a human titular head that exploits the human situation.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Rhin0
How about NONE OF THEM? Save it for a college religion class and hope you don't have some hippy wack-job teaching the class, that way maybne you can get a fair view of all you list.


My view is:

I have no problem with anyones religion (I am christian) but so many people just go too far. I am so tired of dealing with bible thumpers and athiests. Many athiests are no better than the bible thumpers, they just lack the bible. I honestly don't know which is worse.

-You're christian? GREAT don't go to SLC and try to convert mormons or go to Israel convert jews either. There isn't anyone who likes the aggresive attempts at conversion or unwelcome preaching,

-Your're an athiest? You don't believe in any god? What does it matter to you then? Get off your high horse and STFU.

Complete agreement!

 

[sandorski]

Agnnostic Q&A Handbook

Q: Is there a God/gods?
A: Dunno

If there is a God/gods:
Q: Did God/gods Create the Universe or anything in it?
A: Dunno

Q: Does God/gods require a Moral conduct from Humanity?
A: Dunno

Q: "*"
A: Dunno

😉

It's been a long time since I covered the subject, but as I recall there were some very interesting Philosophers whose thoughts were the basis of Agnosticism.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Agnnostic Q&A Handbook

Q: Is there a God/gods?
A: Dunno

If there is a God/gods:
Q: Did God/gods Create the Universe or anything in it?
A: Dunno

Q: Does God/gods require a Moral conduct from Humanity?
A: Dunno

Q: "*"
A: Dunno

😉

It's been a long time since I covered the subject, but as I recall there were some very interesting Philosophers whose thoughts were the basis of Agnosticism.

Actually, an agnostic would answer your second and third questions in the affirmative. Remember, the agnostic is concerned with the existence of ultimate cause. If there IS an ultimate cause (to which the agnostic gives the term "God"), then by definition "God exists" (and all the things that God represents exist, too). So, if you provided an agnostic with the premise, "God exists" (as you did in your second question), then a true agnostic will readily reply, "Yes". Similary, in your third question, you are asking about "God", since "God" (by definition) requires moral conduct, the answer from an Agnostic would be "yes".

As to your first question, a true agnostic would ask why you're posing an unanswerable question.

 

[sandorski]

Way to ruin a "good"ish joke! :| 😉 😀

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: shira
I ask this in response to those who think courses on religion in public schools would be a good idea. A happen to agree, but it seems to me that to remain truly balanced when addressing the question of faith, we would want to include all sides of the question.

So in addition to the obvious, mainstream deist religions, I think we'd also want the course to dedicate a week or so to atheism, another week to agnosticism, another to Satanism, another to Voodoo and the occult, etc. This would provide a truly "fair and balanced" view of the beliefs held be people.

The purpose of the course would, after all, be to educate, not to indoctrinate.

So, whaddaya think?

I think the answer to your question really depends on what your goals are. If you want to teach religion in the context of history, then no, teaching Satanism, Voodism and such would not be necessary. Of course, there would be a need to teach some "dead" religions.

Now, if you wanted to teach people current religions, educating a student about greeks, romans, aztecs and the rest wouldn't be necessary, but teaching Voodoo, agnosticism and atheism might be appropriate.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: shira
I ask this in response to those who think courses on religion in public schools would be a good idea. A happen to agree, but it seems to me that to remain truly balanced when addressing the question of faith, we would want to include all sides of the question.

So in addition to the obvious, mainstream deist religions, I think we'd also want the course to dedicate a week or so to atheism, another week to agnosticism, another to Satanism, another to Voodoo and the occult, etc. This would provide a truly "fair and balanced" view of the beliefs held be people.

The purpose of the course would, after all, be to educate, not to indoctrinate.

So, whaddaya think?

I actually have a fairly practical critique of this issue. As far as Atheism and Agnosticism goes, the question is how much do students really need to know about these two beliefs that will be useful in the course of their general educations? There may be some complexity, but the question is how much do you need to cover in this course and to what extent could save things like existentialism for a philosophy course or when you're reading the right book in your english Literature course? My personal feeling on this is you can cover these two belief system pretty quickly in a survey course.

As far as the other three religions you mentioned, the issue is there are actually thousands of religions in the world today, and you can only cover so many in a survey course. You have to pick specific ones to teach about, and probably focus on certain "major" religions, and two obviously ways to do this is to do so by the sheer number of practicioners of a religion, and the religions historical impact. You could also potentially consider other things such as religions that other religions branched off from being considered more significant due to that detail.

The point is, as organized religions go, Satanism, Voodoo, and the occult are fairly limited in significance as organized religions. Satanism (which really involved at least two seperate religions using this word as part of their name) wasn't actually an organized religion (at least in any measurable way) until rather recently, and they don't have that many followers. The reality is very few poeple practice simply Voodoo or the occult as organized religions. Most of these practices can be effectively covered as part of cultural studies when you're dicussing some groups of people or a society in a different class and dont' need to be covered in a religious survey class. If anything, you might want to talk about some of the traditional African religions (not the relative newcomers of Chritianity and Islam) and this might provide a basis for understanding some of the basis of voodoo practices in another class.

Basicly covering religions such as Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism ahead of some other religions in a survey class makes sense and is not simply a case of religious bias.

 

[datalink7]

Atheism isn't a religion, or even really a belief system.

 

[imported_Tango]

Atheism and Agnosticism are already bee teached in European high-school. You can't teach philosophy without teaching that.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: datalink7
Atheism isn't a religion, or even really a belief system.

how is saying "i don't believe in God" not a belief system or a religion?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: datalink7
Atheism isn't a religion, or even really a belief system.

how is saying "i don't believe in God" not a belief system or a religion?

What system is that and how is it a religion?

Reagarding the topic, no it shouldn't be taught.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: datalink7
Atheism isn't a religion, or even really a belief system.

how is saying "i don't believe in God" not a belief system or a religion?

What system is that and how is it a religion?

Reagarding the topic, no it shouldn't be taught.

Sorry, you can't just turn my question around to me.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: datalink7
Atheism isn't a religion, or even really a belief system.

how is saying "i don't believe in God" not a belief system or a religion?

Because it's a statement, not a system of rites and rituals and, besides, it flies in the face of the definition of religion:

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: datalink7
Atheism isn't a religion, or even really a belief system.

how is saying "i don't believe in God" not a belief system or a religion?

What system is that and how is it a religion?

Reagarding the topic, no it shouldn't be taught.

Sorry, you can't just turn my question around to me.

OK explain why not believing in Religion is a "Belief System" and a "Religion"