UK Census 2011

[feral chile]

Which shows how religious education in schools is changing/has changed over time from when we were there to now. And so will it go on changing as new perspectives are brought to the table. I think it should be taught in schools and I dont think parents should have the option to withdraw their children from it, just as I dont believe parents should have the option to withdraw their children from classes full stop - 37.5 million adults in england and wales assigned to having a christian imaginary friend 10 years ago. These people shouldnt have the option of limiting their children's education!!

Psychology wasnt taught in school when I was there, now its an A Level, possibly a GCSE option, I dont know. I'll bet there were more people that were taught A Level Psychology last year than RE A level. Teaching RE at an early age would seem to be having the opposite effect of discounting people wanting to understand why people do things. Indeed, teaching RE could very well be having an impact on kids wanting to go on and learn about how belief systems evolve

[llcoolphil]

I always thought that was semantics. Based on the meaning of the word universe, isn't it a collective noun meaning everything in existence? Therefore, there can be only one universe. Though maybe what they mean is that there's more to the universe than we think.

[feral chile]

I couldnt begin to realistically understand M Theory, String Theory or virtually any other theory around quantum mechanics, let alone explain it. But it's very much not simply semantics, its what happens as we understand more and come up with more hypotheses to test. I do understand that the Higgs Boson currently explains how we have mass. I also understand that not only have we never found one, scientists reckon if they haven't found one at the LHC by the end of 2012 then it almost certainly doesn't exist and our understanding is wrong. Science could be seen as much based on a faith system as religion. Just as Im comfortable with teaching religion in schools in the sense of 'this is what these people believe', Im equally comfortable that we are spending billions upon billions upon billions of pounds bashing shit into each other to find out if Higgs was right or not!

[llcoolphil]

Very fair point. Even back when I was in school, O Level RE was more about the historical background of Jesus' time than Christianity per se. It was really interesting actually. It wasn't preachy at all. The Bible wan't really treated as factual.

It was very philosophical in nature - the philosophical implications of Judas' betrayal of Jesus in relation to free will and eternal damnation, for instance.

[llcoolphil]

Science is the latest fad, you could say.

[feral chile]

I never even studied christianity at secondary school - well, not that I recall. I definitely did more on judaism and islam though. And I know my daughter knows more about hinduism than she does about the bible. Her religious education comes only from school because neither her mum nor i have been serious church goers. The idea that re in schools is little more than christian indoctrination is anecdotally nonsensical as far as I can see.

[llcoolphil]

Because science is the new religion, and alien abductions are related to science as contact from God is related to religion.

[llcoolphil]

do people actually get fined for not filling in the census form or do they just say that to scare you into doing what you're told?

i'll send the form back if i feel like it but don't like the idea of being forced into it.

Edited March 19, 2011 by llcoolphil

[feral chile]

The LHC creating a black hole is related to science. As cox famously pointed out, anyone believing that is a twat. Alien abductions are only related to science in that in order for them to happen, we need aliens and spaceships. Id say they were totally unrelated to science because there is zero empirical evidence to support them. Anecdotal evidence isnt science.

And Id argue that alien abduction becoming part of popular culture doesnt make it science or religion

I certainly think that its interesting in a pschological sense about how people assign experience, though Id need a definition of 'real' to agree that it's a real experience

That was my point earlier that in 20/50/100 however many years it may be a subject worthy of teaching in itself. But until there is a body of evidence, it remains the subject of psychology and the lengths people will go to to say 'look at me'.

[llcoolphil]

So by real I mean sincere that they've had a strange experience. And are genuinely traumatised by it.

[feral chile]

But that doesnt mean they've been whipped away in a spaceship.

I think the feeling of powerlessness needs neither religion nor aliens. It might be that powerlessness - how many people experience that at some point in their life - is a universal human condition, in which case it is very human but a non-human understanding is sought.

[llcoolphil]

I agree with all of the above. I think the human capacity to transcend our condition, even if in our imagination, is what gives rise to these reports. We've always strived to go beyond our immediate experience, always felt there's more 'out there'. It's just that I don't think religions deserve more, or less, respect, than other explanations, though I do take the point that one's more socially acceptable than the other. But without good reason. I do think religion is OK to be taught at secondary school in the way that I think it's taught now, as an explanation of different belief structures. I just don't like Christianity being taught to very young children in school.

[feral chile]

I think there might be something in the idea that by teaching it in schools, it acts as a bullwark against fundamentalism. They don't teach RE in school in america, yet their society is fundamentally less tolerant. Perhaps teaching RE makes us more secular, not less. Religion is, essentially, geographically determined (though decreasingly so admittedly). People might assign themselves as christian in the same way I assign myself british. I am british by geographical determination, but being british doesnt mean anything to me.

[llcoolphil]

Or perhaps the might actually feel they are Christian ? Just a thought

[feral chile]

You know you don't have to go to church to have faith either...

I have no idea how many people are Christian and how many aren't, overall it makes no difference to my life, I just find it incredibly ignorant that some people are presuming millions of people can't answer a straight forward question on how they feel.

[eFestivals]

Have you got some evidence to support this or is it another of your made up statistics? Ive searched and ant find anything to support the claim.

try searching harder. An increasing number of kids in the UK reject evolution in favour of creationism.

That's a view of religion not shared by the vast majority of people

Which just further shows those people's stupidity.

Because 37.5 million people dont believe in the spaghetti monster

and 37.5M don't believe in god either. They merely say they do for cultural and not religious reasons (as the humanist's can prove to you). Church attendances for one make this abundantly clear.

The simple truth is that there's an identical intellectual basis for both 'standard' religions and the Spaghetti Monster. The fact that one is rejected as ridiculous by most just gets to show the ridiculous intellectual standards of 'believers'.

[llcoolphil]

try searching harder. An increasing number of kids in the UK reject evolution in favour of creationism.

Which just further shows those people's stupidity.

and 37.5M don't believe in god either. They merely say they do for cultural and not religious reasons (as the humanist's can prove to you). Church attendances for one make this abundantly clear.

The simple truth is that there's an identical intellectual basis for both 'standard' religions and the Spaghetti Monster. The fact that one is rejected as ridiculous by most just gets to show the ridiculous intellectual standards of 'believers'.

[eFestivals]

Firstly ive searched extensively and there is nothing to support your argument. Do you have a link or not? For someone that believes so much in science you really are rubbish at providing evidence.

do I have a link, no, because I've not looked for one. Have I seen it reported, yes.

I'm telling you what I know. Choose to believe it, or not.

Secondly - are you saying that every scientist with religious beliefs has poor intellectual standards? I'll do you a list when im not on my phone

I apologise for not saying 'most believers', rather than just 'believers' so implying all.

As for any scientists that credits a belief in a 'standard' religion as somehow more worthy than a belief in the Spaghetti Monster, then yes. That would be them taking an emotional standpoint and not an intellectual one.

[worm]

Im pretty sure we can manage cultural education without considering either. Im absolutely certain you cant without teaching religion

[worm]

When I say related to science, I mean that the belief structure behind them is science and this is replacing, in some instances, religion as a belief structure. So our culture is changing, and so are cultural explanations for unexplained phenomenon.

[worm]

As for any scientists that credits a belief in a 'standard' religion as somehow more worthy than a belief in the Spaghetti Monster, then yes. That would be them taking an emotional standpoint and not an intellectual one.

Edited March 21, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

So, accepting a standard religion over a belief in the Spaghetti Monster has no intellectual validity, but choosing evolution over creationism has.

On what grounds exactly?

Evidence.

[worm]

Evidence.

[eFestivals]

If it's evidence-based then it has nothing to do with belief

Not entirely true. People choose to have belief in sharable evidence, generally a far greater amount of belief than they do with non-sharable 'evidence'.

If something is evidence based then it has nothing to do with faith. I think that's what you meant to say.

Nor does it have anything to do with intellect.

incorrect. Evidence is evaluated for its worth and significance by the intellect.

The scientist can therefore believe in a religion on the basis of his intellect.

Correct. But I never said that he couldn't.

[worm]

If something is evidence based then it has nothing to do with faith. I think that's what you meant to say.

Edited March 21, 2011 by worm