Topic: Teaching religious controversy?

[Robert Webb]

Here's an idea for a different approach to combating the "teach the controversy" mob.  Why don't we try to introduce "teach the controversy" into religious classes?  Surely religious beliefs themselves are more controversial than evolution or climate change.  Let's insist on introducing such ideas into religious teaching!

If they say "God said blah", then they should also have to teach the other side, that maybe God didn't say that, or doesn't even exist, and that there's no consensus about this.  Throw in some science and history showing how the bible came into being, morphed over time, and point out some factual errors and self-contradictions.

Even teaching comparative religion seems to be along the lines of "some people believe this, and some people believe that", while still being careful not to question any belief.  I'd like to see the next generation being taught what science really tells us about religion.

Maybe by trying to get science into religious classes they may see the trouble they're in and back down from introducing their religion into science classes.

On the other hand it may just antagonise them!

What do you think?

Rob.

[Moloch]

Do they have 'religious classes' in public schools where you live? How sad.

[daemonowner]

At a primary school near where I live in New Zealand a preacher comes in every friday morning to tell the children about the bible - a little sunday school thing on friday. I don't really know the details, my brother went through it for a year some time ago, but I didn't. I wonder if its illegal..

[Moloch]

Even if religious teaching is taught in public schools, I think the tactic described by the OP is a fool's errand. Why stoop to their tactics? Aren't we supposed to be better than that. If we are saying that only science should be taught in the science classroom shouldn't we also be saying that only religion should be taught in the religious classroom? Whether or not the religious classroom should even exist is a different matter, but that can be argued on it's own terms.

[daemonowner]

The whole point of it is giving them a taste of their own medicine. By saying we should teach religion in the science classroom as long as we can also think in their churches they realise the problem with what their saying - they really don't want the controversy taught in church.
I don't think this should be done in religious classes - unless the whole point of the class is to preach to the kiddies. If its an unbiased look at the world religions there's no point.
And if the religion class is promoting christianity say, then I should think the controversy should be taught.

[Moloch]

Just because some jerk kid comes along and stomps on my sandcastle doesn't mean I'm going to go over and stomp on his.

[daemonowner]

I'm not advocating stomping on their sandcastle. The point is getting them to realise why teaching the controversy is bullshit - or at least making them drop the idea like a hot potato. And its funny.

[Robert Webb]

It wasn't necessarily a serious suggestion, but it is interesting to think about.  Not sure I'd call it "stooping" to their level though, as all we'd be doing is trying to improve education.

I never thought "only science should be taught in the science classroom" was a good argument because the other side believes their beliefs are scientific (although they're wrong).  It's a good argument for everyone else though.  If we think instead of suggesting that only "truth" be taught in all classrooms, including science and religion, then there'd be nothing hypocritical here.  I think it's pretty reasonable that we expect children not be taught that there is a god and he wants this that and the other, but I do think it's good that they learn about religion, from a dispassionate standpoint, about multiple religions past and present, along with a critical view of their origins.  Seems reasonable.

[Moloch]

Not sure I'd call it "stooping" to their level though, as all we'd be doing is trying to improve education.

I dislike the 'teach the controversy argument' because it's sneaky and dishonest. If Eugenie Scott announced that her organization was spear-heading a 'teach the controversy' agenda of their own it would remain sneaky and dishonest.

I never thought "only science should be taught in the science classroom" was a good argument because the other side believes their beliefs are scientific (although they're wrong).

I believe it is a good argument, and so did Judge Jones at the Dover trial. The argument worked and ID got knocked back because it was shown to be unscientific.

If we think instead of suggesting that only "truth" be taught in all classrooms, including science and religion, then there'd be nothing hypocritical here.

I'm not sure how this helps, religious proponents quite obviously believe they have the truth on their side. Winning this argument would mean winning the argument that religion is untrue.... good luck with that. Rather it's more reasonable and achievable to simply argue that religion is unscientific, which loops back to my original point about only science being taught in the science classroom.

I think it's pretty reasonable that we expect children not be taught that there is a god and he wants this that and the other, but I do think it's good that they learn about religion, from a dispassionate standpoint, about multiple religions past and present, along with a critical view of their origins.  Seems reasonable.

Agreed, though I don't see how trying to get science taught in a religious class helps this goal.

[worldslaziestbusker]

I see value in the opportunities for ridicule this raises.  It might not change minds, but it might embarrass some people enough that they'll stop trying to lever their faith into areas where their science should be. 
Even if it fails to cause the desired embarrassment, there's scope for it to be funny and for you to get a laugh where you would otherwise be likely to cry. 


The periodic table keeps being appended.  Chemists can't make up their minds.  Earth, fire, water, air - teach the controversy.


If redox reactions were real, we could expect to see smoke spontaneously turn into wood.  Phlogiston - teach the controversy.


Bread goes in, toast comes out.  Teach the explain that.




Ow.  Got my memes crossed.

[Moloch]

To be clear, I understand the purpose of highlighting absurdity by turning the tables on the absurd. I think my objection is in literally mimicking the absurdity as a strategy rather using it as a rhetorical device, which I have no problem with.

[worldslaziestbusker]

I didn't think the OP was suggesting that people should start working on TTC curricula for Sunday schools. 

[Moloch]

I didn't think the OP was suggesting that people should start working on TTC curricula for Sunday schools.

Why don't we try to introduce "teach the controversy" into religious classes? 

He was clearly "spitballing" as they say, but what's the problem with addressing his hypothetical argument?

[worldslaziestbusker]

Nothing.

[Shibboleth]

It would be about as effective as trying to force creationism on you guys.