Two bits in the Telegraph today which were quite interesting. Charles Moore expressing a similar view to Sibling Chatty on arrogant atheists (I've noticed you never see C.M and S.C. together, but no, surely not...):
http://tinyurl.com/2uysup (http://tinyurl.com/2uysup)
and an article on U.S. home schooling and its association with creationism.
http://tinyurl.com/2p6d33 (http://tinyurl.com/2p6d33)
edit: fixed spelling
I was far from impressed with Charles Moore's piece.
It seemed to me he tried to combine rambling and bumbling, and failed to achieve rumbling.
Instead, he got some mental fumbling. He stumbled between the banal and irrelevant, failing to recognize either.
Sibling Chatty would eat his lunch. :)
It's (IMHO) a traditional Middle-England view of religion which rather give the impression that they want religion to be respected, not because of veracity, but because it's a useful philosophy for keeping the servants in order, and because we've always done it that way.
It's a view that finds the devout believer every bit as annoying/embarassing as the smarty-pants Oxford atheist. If it's rambling/bumbling it's perhaps because there isn't a way of putting this philosophy coherently, even if it is the last stand of the religious middle-ground before it polarises into evangelism and atheism.
Quote from: beagle on April 07, 2007, 09:48:30 PM
It's (IMHO) a traditional Middle-England view of religion ......it's a useful philosophy for keeping the servants in order, and because we've always done it that way.
It's identical with the Tory idea of tax cuts for "married couples" IMNHO.
I found the article infuriating. Not slagging off the intelligent? That's exactly what he seemed to be doing to me.
Why does CM think the two word phrase, that ends with "design",
begins with the word "intelligent"?
I think it's a doomed sort of wishy-washy English Christianity that he's promoting anyway. Caught in a pincer movement between those evangelical/fundamentalist faiths that aren't afraid to say "We are right, you are wrong" and secularism. In a way it's sad to see it go, because it did embody a degree of tolerance, perhaps partly because it didn't feel an absolute conviction in its own correctness.
No thoughts on the other article? I thought that was the more interesting. Especially the parallels between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims being afraid of the outside world corrupting them.
Quote from: beagle on April 07, 2007, 11:50:42 PM
I think it's a doomed sort of wishy-washy English Christianity that he's promoting anyway.
You mean like C of E ? :mrgreen:
Quote from: beagle on April 07, 2007, 11:50:42 PM
No thoughts on the other article? I thought that was the more interesting. Especially the parallels between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims being afraid of the outside world corrupting them.
No thoughts YET. On my part. (Can't speak for others!) I got distracted by RL (a friend with
man trouble) and haven't read it yet. ;D
my favorite part of the second article is where
it is explained that Noah took baby brontos on the ark because that makes the most sense.
Are they still called Bronto- I thought it was Apatosaurus or something.
Sorry if I sound like I am making fun of someone or someones beliefs- it's just that it does not make sense.
I agree it's the idea of "corruption" from the outside world and exactly what are the children being taught in the name of religious freedom? Does freedom of belief automatically trump verifiable fact? Of course that now begs the question, "Who's fact?".
Quote from: anthrobabe on April 08, 2007, 12:38:57 AM
my favorite part of the second article is where
it is explained that Noah took baby brontos on the ark because that makes the most sense.
Are they still called Bronto- I thought it was Apatosaurus or something.
My favourite is where Prof. Eve says of the Scopes trial: 'The press had such a field day painting creationists as ignoramuses that I think most people thought evolution carried the day,'. I wondered if they took baby Ignoramuses on the ark like they took the baby Brontosauruses.
ditto... not intending any religious offenseThis is a rich article with a wealth of interesting material, likely to incite many people. For example, I can think of a number of vegans who would object to the use of antlers as candlesticks. I like the imaginitive and multiple use of x
says there are N thousand/million home-schoolers citing creationism as the reason for it.
I love the paragraph:
Quote'Some parents are sincere,' Steven Schafersman admits. But he is still not convinced that the children of literalist Christians get a good education in biology, earth science, environmental science, history, civics, economics or health. Tim Lambert is unfazed: 'We would say you get a very narrow, skewed education in high school.' Schafersman has another worry: 'Their kids are restricting themselves from the broad community, from news and other views that may disagree with them.' To which many home-schoolers would chorus, 'Exactly!'
to which I would add two words "
exactly Exactly".
No offense meant to the Gebharts : 'Megan was just too precious and too special to hand over to a big machine,' recalls Dave Gebhart,"; but doesn't the bible teach all children are precious and special? Or is it just one of my own unimportant beliefs?
I wonder if Karen Armstrong was home schooled? I am puzzled by her understanding of Islamic fundamentalism.
This isolation from those of differing viewpoints is one of my main "issues" with home schooling. I can't fault any parent who truly thinks it is better for their child ( and I agree w/ Griffins Aren't all children precious!thought) but so often it seems (anyone feel free to disagree here) that the idea is not so much "schooling" but "indoctrination" in the us vs them belief system.
My daughter and I were discussing the "either or fallacy" last night- and the idea that many have( and it's not just fundamentalist christians either) about evolution and christianity being the eiter and the or. There is much more than A or B here- even if we someday find a modern homosapien fossil that can be positively dated as a fossil say among positively dated trilobite fossils- well then of course we've got to go back to the ol drawing board ( but ain't that what science is about all folks!) and figure some things out--- but even if this were to occur that does not mean that TA-DA the B camp is correct, C could be or even F. We have to combat this If I'm right then they are wrong fallacy, because it could always be C.(if you ever get an opportunity to see Dr. Michael Shermer lecture take advantage of it- he explains this so much better than I ever could).
Quote from: anthrobabe on April 08, 2007, 12:38:57 AM
my favorite part of the second article is where
it is explained that Noah took baby brontos on the ark because that makes the most sense.
Are they still called Bronto- I thought it was Apatosaurus or something.
I didn't know that until now. Think they're in the clear though as it's a Brachiosaurus they're trying to haul up the gang-plank, and that hasn't undergone rebranding yet.
Quote
I agree it's the idea of "corruption" from the outside world and exactly what are the children being taught in the name of religious freedom? Does freedom of belief automatically trump verifiable fact? Of course that now begs the question, "Who's fact?".
Yep. If it wasn't possible to muddy the waters around even obvious facts then we'd be rather short of lawyers.
You can't help feeling that when these kids finally venture out into the outside world someone's going to sell them the Brooklyn Bridge in the first few minutes.
Out of interest I had a quick Google round some homeschooling sites in the UK, and they too seemed to be fundamentalist religion dominated (though some weren't and had evolution related stuff in the Biology sections).
Quote
...but even if this were to occur that does not mean that TA-DA the B camp is correct, C could be or even F.
Be sort of amusing if 2001 (the movie) was correct, and someone dug up a monolith instead of another fossil. That would put the cat among the pigeons.
Quote
(if you ever get an opportunity to see Dr. Michael Shermer lecture take advantage of it
Thanks for the reference, there seems to be stuff of his at skeptic.com which I'll look at.
Concerning the Brontosaurus thingm here's a camplete explanation on that issue:
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/bronto/
and here another interesting one:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/brontokids.html
======================================================
Concerning quality of school education, there was an interesting article the other day in the Telegraph:
No lessons on the Holocaust (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/02/nschools02.xml)
QuoteSchools are dropping controversial subjects from history lessons - such as the Holocaust and the Crusades - because teachers do not want to cause offence, Government research has discovered.
What will the kids learn in the future, if you consider that most parts of our history are controversial?
I think history has been the area where political correctness has most impinged on the curriculum. When I was at school 30 odd years ago it was the tail end of the great man/woman school of British history teaching. It was still possible to say that history turned on what key individuals did (Wellington, Nelson, Elizabeth I, Churchill, Wilberforce, Florence Nightingale, Pitt etc for Britain). Nowadays it seems it all has to be in terms of the inevitability of social trends and the behaviour of the common people. So it's fine to teach how the British people put up with hardships in WWII, but not to remotely suggest that the country's survival owed something to that old imperialist, Churchill and the possession of a rather large navy.
In the immortal words of the Stranglers, No more heroes any more. ;)
At least, not unless you can afford to send the kids to private school.
Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on April 08, 2007, 09:08:12 PM
Concerning the Brontosaurus thingm here's a camplete explanation on that issue:
http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/faq/s-class/bronto/
Not wishing to return to the endless debate of the past on the topic of phylocodes, nonetheless I feel bound to mention that Mike Taylor is a phylocode bod and as such I wouldn't put any weight myself on the finer details of his explanation, embedded in the article, on "When is a new dinosaur erected as a new species or genus?''.
I did start looking for the establishment views on this to quote here but got side-tracked down memory lane looking at pics of many old work colleagues at http://www.svpca.org/years/2005_london/gallery.php. Thanks Kiyo for an interesting side trip !
One final note on Mike Taylor. I see he is based at the University of Portsmouth. Anuvver foine reeson ter scratch me peg leg ;D ;D
Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on April 08, 2007, 09:08:12 PM
What will the kids learn in the future, if you consider that most parts of our history are controversial?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the knowledge of what happened on WWII the catalyst that changed a number of attitudes in Europe? Isn't that the rationale for the laws against denying the holocaust?
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on April 09, 2007, 01:31:26 AM
Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on April 08, 2007, 09:08:12 PM
What will the kids learn in the future, if you consider that most parts of our history are controversial?
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the knowledge of what happened on WWII the catalyst that changed a number of attitudes in Europe? Isn't that the rationale for the laws against denying the holocaust?
My own belief is that we have lost any clarity that followed WWII. I feel society is in an endless turmoil of confusion. For me it is impossible to ignore ongoing ethnic cleansing around the world, extremely mixed messages here in the UK about our mix of backgrounds and ethnicity, and a lack of global focus on basic human dignity, rights, freedoms, wellbeing (and well fed) and health. I constantly see a polarity between violent acts (and wars)and deprivations and self-perpetuating debate from which no action emerges. But it is the middle of the night here so maybe things will look different to me in the morning when a nice sunny day is forecast.
Although I wouldn't say that history classes were bad at my time in school, I'd still say that the curriculum should be organized better, i.e. tighter. All too often whole periods were left out not because of some ideology but because the time ran out. Lingering too long in the Middle Ages caused the time between the 30 years war and the French revolution to be left out almost completely and the in-depth treatment of the French revolution/Napoleon left no time for the rest of the 19th century, we had to jump right into the aftermath of WW1.
The post-WW2 period fell victim to Weimar&3rd Reich. Both the 19th century and post-WW2 had to enter through the backdoor later in politics classes and the topics there were of course a good deal narrower.
Given my experiences at the university the "stuff left out due to running out of time" is still pervasive. It's depressing to witness a whole (history of science) class that can't even reach an agreement about who was on what side in WW1 (and I mean major players).
But still are the macro lessons of the war completely lost? Obviously you should know that much better than i do, but my impression is that the general attitude is a *bit* more careful than -say- certain drunk driver cowboy. Also, while the news report a resurgence in nationalist/pseudo-racist attitudes in certain groups, the general society would seem (at least from here) to reject them.
I guess my point is that while not everybody did or will learn history lessons, some major social trends have been moving forward. Perhaps the right question to put things in perspective is: if you go back 50 years general attitudes are better or worse than now?
Going back to my initial post, I would think that understanding the historical controversies is precisely the key to avoid repeating history itself.
My impression is that the US mental state (at least concerning nationalism/foreign policy) has too much similarities to Germany about 1910 to be comfortable. And Bush being Wilhelm II minus brain and empathy doesn't actually help ;) :(.
Do US children learn history mainly by memorizing minute details about certain events? Reading Mark Twain on that topic leaves that impression and I don't know what or how much has changed since then.
I am interested in a few things in the Moore article....
1. in the original vote there were 1871 people. In the second vote there were 2086. More than 200 people (miraculously) materialised. was this a large party of atheists who were late? did they arrive in time to hear the arguments? If not why were they allowed to vote. Surely the only fair way to run the vote in this process is to poll the same people twice!
2. Clearly nobody had their mind changed by this process. in the first vote the no camp polled 36% of the vote. In the second 37%. The yes camp went up from 44% to 57%. All the shift is accounted for by the dont knows and the unaccountable arrivals. To my mind all this really shows is that people who 'dont know' do actually know but need the affirmation of 'knowlegable' people and their peers to step forward and critiscise religion.
3. the debate question "we'd be better off without religion" is not one that implies anything about the existence of God. Even if I believed in god I would argue that we would be better off without religion!
4. In my experience intelligent people are rarely happier people than 'thickos' when it comes to "how we feel, how we act towards others, how we speak, sing, dance, laugh, cry, eat and wash, how we die, how we pray and how we love." I would however look to J.S.Mill
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides."
If the price of understanding things is to be less happy then I will gladly take it. The happiness Moore refers to is simply illusion. If you extend this argument then the natural end point is that it would be better if we never found out Father Christmas did not exist.
I suppose I am probably one of the evangelical atheists in question. It tends to make me despair when i see people putting their energy into illusory things rather than the betterment of the world in which we live. If just the hours spent by the millions in church every week were spent improving their neighbourhoods we would ALL be much happier!
Quote from: goat starer on April 10, 2007, 01:06:43 PM
It tends to make me despair when i see people putting their energy into illusory things rather than the betterment of the world in which we live. If just the hours spent by the millions in church every week were spent improving their neighbourhoods we would ALL be much happier!
Don't worry, we're planning something for you in another thread which will take your mind off it. ;D
Of course the religious would probably agree with the pastoral work bit, and they've got a better record than most. (What am I saying, I'll be struck off as an atheist).
Quote from: Swatopluk on April 10, 2007, 08:41:00 AM
My impression is that the US mental state (at least concerning nationalism/foreign policy) has too much similarities to Germany about 1910 to be comfortable. And Bush being Wilhelm II minus brain and empathy doesn't actually help ;) :(.
Do US children learn history mainly by memorizing minute details about certain events? Reading Mark Twain on that topic leaves that impression and I don't know what or how much has changed since then.
I agree with you on my countries mental state- not everyone has the "condition" but those that do certainly overwhelm those who don't. When any nation has a "leader" that believes they are getting direct and unfiltered directions from God and then acting on that almost unfettered is a danger to the rest of the planet. The less I say about W the better.
About learning history- I was in public High School about 20 years ago and at the time is was still pretty much learning the "old" stuff and memorization and not much current events and world view stuff. LOTS of ethnocentricm! I remember that- Oh national pride and all is not a bad thing but this "WE vs
themis just not good. From what I can gather now ( I have one daughter still in public high school) not too much has changed- still an inordiante amount of time spent on the Civil War and such.
I've take the freshman History classes in college- they were pretty thick with the past- but better about being global and not just US history, probably because there are oodles of US history classes themselves. Just not enough time spent- two semesters is not enough time for an introduction to all of history!
I should probably be more current on what is being taught in public schools- but I tend to let the school teach their stuff and then suplement it in daily life by getting my daughters to read the paper, watch the news ( and not just USA networks either- we are quite fond of the BBC news and TeleMundo), and just generally encourage them to think outside the box and have a more global view of things. Like when 9-11 happened- I made it a point to have them( and myself) look at it and think about it from the view of other people and nations( sort of trying to wear someone elses shoes).
I do love the USA- we aren't perfect- darn-it who is. We do have great issues with how we look,appear,represent ourselves to the rest of the planet- but I don't think all is lost yet. It's my intention to keep screaming loudly so that all is never lost. We've all got to understand that it's not the USA vs Them- we all inhabit this planet and we can't just up and move somewhere else. It belongs to us ALL.
I totally agree with cleaning up ones own neighborhood before daring to complain about anothers.
Quote from: goat starer on April 10, 2007, 01:06:43 PM
It tends to make me despair when i see people putting their energy into illusory things rather than the betterment of the world in which we live. If just the hours spent by the millions in church every week were spent improving their neighbourhoods we would ALL be much happier!
Unfortunately, there are too many (WAY too many) people that wouldn't even begin to be cognizant of the need to do anything for ANY neighborhood. One of the side effects of an hour or so in church every week or so is that a certain percentage of attendees eventually Get It and realize that they MUST do something to better the world before they can rest on their comfortable backsides. (Does the athiest or agnostic position offer similar 'motivated learning'?)
Put enough people in one place with a source document that speaks highly of Doing for Others and eventually they leave off studying the Old Testament and the Very Judgmental Pauline Epistles, and get down to the very essence of the gospel, which is Love Thy Fellow Human Being, and not in an ephemeral, academic manner.
"For though I speak with the tongues of Men and of Angels, if I have not Love, it profiteth me nothing."
If you can't get that through their thick skulls except through repetition, then that hour or so a week is NOT wasted. (And now we know why the Baptists decided to withdraw the offer of ordination. They HATE being called thick-skulled.)
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on April 16, 2007, 05:47:49 AM
Quote from: goat starer on April 10, 2007, 01:06:43 PM
It tends to make me despair when i see people putting their energy into illusory things rather than the betterment of the world in which we live. If just the hours spent by the millions in church every week were spent improving their neighbourhoods we would ALL be much happier!
Unfortunately, there are too many (WAY too many) people that wouldn't even begin to be cognizant of the need to do anything for ANY neighborhood. One of the side effects of an hour or so in church every week or so is that a certain percentage of attendees eventually Get It and realize that they MUST do something to better the world before they can rest on their comfortable backsides. (Does the athiest or agnostic position offer similar 'motivated learning'?)
No it doesn't, and your point is well made.
Some of us (and I believe an equivalent number of christians and muslims and others, also) get it anyway.
But your point has about tripled the perceived value (in my cynical eyes) of religion in the modern world.
Thank you, I needed that. :) :-*
That, actually, is one of the few valuable things about "organized" religion.
(I used to say that I wasn't a member of an organized religion, I was a Baptist. Then along came the Right Wingers (in the mid 70's to be precise) and they organized us. So I left--stage Left.)
There's a certain amount of peer pressure that comes to bear, especially in the Not Authoritarian faiths. That hit me today when I went over to the Senior Citizen's Center to fix Mom's glasses for her. The Lutheran Brotherhood men were there, fixing the damage on the roof. The poured the concrete walks all around the center when it was built. A few years later, when it was needed, they painted it and did the addition at the back. Why? Because the Area Council of Governments would have gotten to it, eventually. Eventually wasn't soon enough, the need was 'now'.
It wasn't the guys that all go drink coffee at 10 AM, it wasn't the VFW or the Lions, it was the Lutherans. Some of them ARE the guys that drink coffee at 10, some of them are in the VFW or Lions. But it was their church affiliation that brought them together to do something.
I think that through things like Meet Ups and other organizational meetings, non-religious groups might do the same, but the tradition of faith groups doing service projects is long. And it's something that is a by-product of the actual premise behind the whole Dog and Pony Show that Modern Religion seems to have become.