WELL, that started out well …
We learn today that the Vatican is sponsoring a conference to mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species – and it kicked off with Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, describing as “absurd” the atheist notion that evolution proves there is no God.
Cardinal Levada
Levada said the Vatican believed there was a “wide spectrum of room” for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator.
We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things.
He said that while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as “absurd” the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God.
Where Levada gets his info from is anyone’s guess. I, for one, have never heard an atheist evolutionist ever claim that evolution “proves” the non-existence of God, but just to make sure I visited Richard Dawkins’ website where he clarifies his position – at the end of an essay entitled Why There Almost Certainly is No God – thus:
We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin’s principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious … God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can’t disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can’t disprove, we can say that God is very, very improbable.
According to this report, the Vatican under Pope Benedict XVI has been trying to stress its belief that there is no incompatibility between faith and reason, and the five-day conference at Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University is a key demonstration of its efforts to engage with the scientific community.
Church teaching holds that Catholicism and evolutionary theory are not necessarily at odds. But the Vatican’s position became somewhat confused in recent years, in part because of a 2005 New York Times op-ed piece written by a close Benedict collaborator, Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.
In the piece, Schoenborn seemed to reject traditional church teaching and back intelligent design, the view that life is too complex to have developed through evolution alone, and that a higher power has had a hand in changes among species over time.
Vatican officials later made clear they did not believe intelligent design was science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only created confusion.
The evolution conference will explore intelligent design later this week, although not as science or theology but as a cultural phenomenon.
In his remarks, Levada referred to both Dawkins and the debate over teaching creationism in schools in the United States. He declined to pinpoint the Vatican’s views, saying merely:
The Vatican listens and learns.
Yeah … but not very well, it seems.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
All churches are anti-science.
At the very least it’s an inconvenience for them as they must constantly re-interpret their scriptures to remain relevant to the modern world. I suppose the anglicans are more flexible than the vatican. The latter oppose the development of new medical technologies and basic sexual health programmes in the third world. All are slowly being pushed into a corner by science. They appear ever more ridiculous, scrabbling about to convince us about gods take on recent advances.
I was a scientist (biochemist) in my youth and there are creatures that call themselves “xian scientists”. Most of us avoided them because you can’t have much in common with such joyless folk.
My interests were rock climbing, boozing and shagging. These guys attended church three times on a Sunday to do all the happy-clappy stuff and tambourine thrashing.
Monday morning they’d be in work still clinging to an irrational faith while sequencing a strand of DNA or pushing genetically engineered plasmids into various bugs. They could see how it all works yet still believed in all that bollocks. If they were ignorant it would be easier to forgive them.
Islam fares worst of all. They stopped the clock in medieval times. I earlier read a link from this site to “Being Human” where they claimed only eight patents had originated in Pakistan in the last 43 years.
Try this link and click on “Watch the Movie”
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/233937
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
I think we might let them have their god but with the following rider:-
It is a god that has never had any interest whatsoever in the human race and never will have; will never make his existence known and whose existence we shall never prove or disprove.
So its probably not worth worrying about it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:53 pm
quedula;
My sentiments exactly.
For me, the question of whether or not a ‘god’ exists is irrelevant. If such a thing does exist, considering the size of the Universe and our place in it, it probably would have as much awareness of the Earth spinning around the Sun as you or I have of an electron spinning round a nucleus.
The very fact that christianity is now trying to reconcile itself with rationality is encouraging. It’s a sure sign that it’s dogma is on increasingly shaky ground.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:24 am
It should surprise no one that a Vatican Reichsfuhrer would resort to lying in a desperate attempt to discredit scientists who have proven the god hypothesis to be unnecessary. Instead of trying to rebut actual arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Victor Stenger, he resorts to the more effective practice of magicians and theologians of misdirection.
Misdirection is usually used in connection with bibles. By defending an allegorical interpretation of the chronology of Genesis, Vatican oligarchs divert attention from their bible’s fourteen endorsements of a flat earth. Similarly, by deluding believers that evolution is claimed to disprove the existence of Big Daddy in the sky, they misdirect them away from the real evidence against the god delusion.
In fact Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett actually endorse the Big Lie that the existence of God can no more be disproven than the existence of Mother Goose can be disproven. They do not dispute that evolution can be harmonized with the existence of a god capable of decreeing, “Let there be evolution.” The only writer to offer proof that God does not exist is Victor Stenger, and for that reason the Vatican hierarchy ignore him and draw attention to writers whom they can accuse of rebuttable arguments they in fact did not make.
If I might be permitted to plagiarize myself (American Rationalist, May/June 2008, review of God: The Failed Hypothesis): Victor Stenger does not set out to prove that gods do not exist. Given the number of possible definitions of what constitutes a god, nothing short of close inspection of every cubic centimeter of the universe could prove that. He contents himself with proving that “God,” defined as a god, “having the attributes that are traditionally associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god,” does not exist. He writes, “This book is an investigation of the evidence for the existence of God–not all gods.” And of all the points Stenger makes, the big one is, “The empirical fact of unnecessary suffering in the world is inconsistent with a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.” He summarizes, “I am not proving that all conceivable gods do not exist. I am simply showing beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with the specific hypothesized attributes does not exist.” And note that his argument has nothing to do with evolution.
I once believed that the only prerequisite for a priest to become a cardinal was a brain as incapable of processing additional data as a pickled cabbage, that it was not necessary to be a congenital liar. That is a belief I no longer profess.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:18 am
But, Dr Harwood, what do you REALLY think? As always I’m grateful that someone has done the spadework on this.
My own view – for what it’s worth, about 45 pence – is that a lot of people, perhaps even a majority, have a real religious or spiritual yearning. It may be partly a result of brainwashing, it may be almost entirely innate – it doesn’t matter. Like other human yearnings (for sex, food, bright pretty colours, fame etc) this one is going to be exploited by people who get very rich and powerful as a result. The religious will of course accept the former point but refuse to face the latter. Sheep is perhaps a more appropriate term for such followers than they realise.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:21 am
As far as Christianity is concerned, the obvious one seems to be; once you accept that man evolved then -
1. No Adam and Eve
2. No original sin
3. No need for salvation through Jesus dying on the cross
4. No Christianity
This has always seemed to me to be the real reason Evangelical Protestants reject evolution. It cuts the ground out from under their feet, so to speak.
Catholics always seem to pull a theological equivalent of pointing behind you and saying ‘What’s that?’. You turn around, there’s nothing there and when you turn back they’re running away.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Christians should be careful. The acceptance that there is no conflict between the idea of a creator god and the scientific evidence for evolution is the strongest card they have. By this reckoning, we have all the stuff that science is continuing to explain – all the wonders, both large and microscopic – but we can conjecture that this is the way God intended it to be. So, ipso facto, anything new that we discover now or in a thousand years’ time can still be said to be part of that same plan: God’s plan.
That still leaves the small matter of proving there is a God, of course, and, as Dawkins says, it’s highly unlikely; and such an “explanation” is totally unnecessary.
We could even ponder on the notion that the cosmos is one brainlike entity in that its very operation comes from what it is, just as our operations are the result of neural activity. But such a notion, even if we were to accept it, does not explain all the idiotic nonsense religionists like to believe, and makes the ideas of virgin births and resurrections and nine orders of angels just so much ridiculous shite.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:07 am
A couple of days ago a bloke I know asked me if I had any paracetamol for his headache. He is a born again christian. I asked him would he not be better invoking the power of prayer. He gave me a look that would melt the polar icecaps. Strike 1 for science!!
I’ve been away for a couple of weeks – has the loathsome Bob buggered off?
March 4th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Evolution is a lie of the Devil.
March 4th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Hello, No. Evolution is a fact. The Devil is a lie of Christianity!
March 4th, 2009 at 11:58 am
@ Tony E, Bob the Nob hasn’t buggered off. That would indeed be a miracle. Nope, he’s sulking because he and his facile, repetitive posts have been barred. He’s screaming “freedom of speech” violations. Ho-hum!
March 4th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
For everyone’s information: “Hello” is Bob slithering in under a new guise. The reptile is is clearly obsessed with atheists.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Whatever next? The church will be conceding that the Sun doesn’t go around the Earth.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Different name, same rubbish. The man is a bore of the highest order and a thinker of the lowest.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Religionists lie to protect their fairy tales? Say it isn’t so!
March 4th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Seems only the faithful listen to the chirpings of the institutional religious authorities, and even among the faithful who do, only the literalists pay attention to the words. The point of intellectual bankruptcy on the part of the institutional religious authorities appears to have past. Their history is an incredible burden that cannot easily be swept under the carpet, as the New Age Christians would prefer to do. Perhaps, forward looking, the onerous elements of the institutional religious authorities will have to rely on non-historical arguments in order to justify their claim of leadership of the faithful. And the faithful are already no longer so clearly defined as Bible/Koran literalists, although the literalists are surely still the easiest pickings. It will be interesting to see who will emerge as the spokespersons for the non-literalists. It would be interesting if the church/mosque doors remained open while the intellectual leadership of the faithful non-literalists existed independently of the institutional religious authorities. By the way, Bob, if you are still out there, please take a look at the recommended reading list and favorite web links. Hoping that something there could possibly jog you out of your trance.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Urmensch, I love that description of Catholic debating technique!
March 4th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Throughout recent history science has chipped away at religious dogma to the extent that the religious must continually shift their stance or interpretation of religious texts to try and discredit science. What the Vatican and other religious organisations are doing is squaring up to us scientists and rationalists by trying – rather unsuccessfully – our method. Whilst this may convince the faithful and gullible and give the impression that the religious are winning, it demonstrates desperation on the part of religious leaders that they must misuse the tools of science. This latest catholic outburst of nonsense is from an organisation that only a few years ago admitted Galileo was right.
Amused to see Bob the berk going on about the fictional devil; invented by the Christians to frighten people [easier to control] and help fill their churches. So in a way the mythical devil has been quite a good friend to the religious. And Bob says such nasty things about him!
March 4th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
As one of the few sad gits that has actually read the Bible all the way through from end to end, I find the casting of the Devil as the bad guy slightly baffling. He is always very polite, he always tells the truth and the only really bad stuff he gets up to is picking on Job and God put him up to that for a bet. The really evil character in the Bible is Yahweh who is not only a very bad guy indeed but is also rather stupid.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
If Hello is Bob I have a question for him.
If he’s into all this creationism and intellgent design malarkey, then why would an intelligent designer conjure up a creature like him?
His very existence puts the kybosh on ID.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Alun,
I think Hello/Bob is just Satan lying to us.
March 5th, 2009 at 12:17 am
“We believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things.”
Isn’t that an interesting statement? I thought they already claimed to know how creation came about. The whole 6days story. Now this cardinal seems to be saying that they are admitting that evolution is probably right and the creation story may ot may not be, but whatever happened was all part of gods plan anyway.
Urmensch,
I’m with Chris on your description of the catholic debating technique! Nice one!!
Stonyground,
I agree with you totally. I’ve not read the bible all the way through (I just can’t stop laughing for long enough to get very far with it) but from what I know of it I was thinking the same as you. God is the bad guy. He seems to be the one dishing out the threats and punishments. What exactly did the devil do to deserve his reputation? I think Bob etc have got things a bit mixed up (ok that’s a candidate for the understatment of the millenia!). I think ‘god’ is the devil and is trying to pull the wool over these guys eyes.
I’ve also been thinking, why would the devil involve himself in gods plan by consenting to burn people in hell for all eternity for not following GOD’S plan? If I was the devil, considering I would be against gods plan, I’d just turn all those sinning souls back at the gates of hell. Then what would god do? Burn them himself of course!!!! Because he loves to inflict suffering!! Yeah!!! And that’s what hell is about anyway. It’s gods doing not the devil’s!
If these people just used their brains…..
Also, if I was the devil, hell would be a great place. I mean, what’s the point of trying to compete with god, who’s offering peace and tranquility for all eternity, by offering eternal damnation in the big bad fire as an alternative. You’re not gonna get many takers! (I do realise this is meant to be the point and is the reason hell was invented in the first place)
Nope. Be consistant I think. Atract them with beer and sex on earth, reward them with free beer and free sex (or whatever you like really) in hell. I’d rake them in. I think the Flying Spagetti Monster is definitely onto a winner!
March 5th, 2009 at 6:02 am
I grew up in Ireland and actually came to my non-belief through a love of mythology. It is still quite clear in my mind when I suddenly saw all the stories of the Bible in exactly the same light as the myths of other cultures.
I must admit to having a particular animus towards Catholicism, though.
In particular, it is due to one event where my conversations with people got back to the parish priest. My parents were nominally Catholic, they’d made us undergo all the juju so the locals wouldn’t turn on them, but they never really attended Mass except for funerals and marriages.
My granny however, did attend and she had a really horrible experience where the priest gave a Sunday sermon about ‘certain families’ not doing right by the church and raising ‘heathens’. He didn’t name us but everyone in the church turned around to look at my gran.
Naturally she was mortified. She came to our house crying about it after and I went off like a bombshell. I was all up for going over to him and tearing him a new arsehole. I didn’t, only because my family begged me not to, saying it would only make things worse. They had to live in the village.
I realised they were right but that experience taught me the vicious power wielded by the church.
I had grown up hearing people talk about the heathen English and I decided that this was the place for me.
For this, it pains me to see the activities of New labour and others and all their talk about how faith is so beneficial for society.
As far as I’m concerned this encouragement of religion is just another aspect of the surveillance and control system being implemented so insidiously into Britain, what with CCTV and of course these proposals for ID cards.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Urmensch, virtually every ex-Catholic I’ve met has a similar experience to relate, and feels contempt or loathing for the church. There is of course no such thing as a lapsed Anglican, as they come pre-lapsed in every important respect.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Valdemar,
I consider myself quite lucky because there were quite a few Protestants who married into our family. They actually leavened the unquestioning devotion to the Church with healthy scepticism and sometimes outright derision.
I was encouraged in my questioning by my mother, who often remarked how much I was like her father, who had converted only out of love for my gran.
She often would say how ridiculous and oppressive the dogmas were. As when, after giving birth, a woman would have to be blessed by the priest.
It was along the lines of asking god to forgive her for having sex and the very next line asked to make her fruitful so she could have lots more children.
She also told the priest to bugger off when, some years after her fifth child nearly had killed her, he stopped her in the street to say he hoped she wasn’t using artificial contraception to prevent her having any more.
I know the Church’s problem with secularism is how it has loosened their stranglehold on the masses.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Urmensch,
“She also told the priest to bugger off when, some years after her fifth child nearly had killed her, he stopped her in the street to say he hoped she wasn’t using artificial contraception to prevent her having any more.”
The level of interference these people believe they have the right to exercise in other peoples lives, the extent to which they are unable to think clearly and rationally and their sheer comtempt for decency is mind boggling.
Thanks for sharing your story, and well done to your mother for telling him where to go!
March 5th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Re my post above, about the cardinal’s comment on creation, I actually meant to go on to say that his comment (to me anyway) seems to cast a degree of uncertainty on the creation story which, of course, comes from the bible. I thought this was supposed to be the word of god? Maybe it’s not after all? Who’d have thought?
So if the creation story is a bit iffy, and this coming from a cardinal, what about the rest of it? Oh dear Bob! Looks like you’re flogging a dead horse! But maybe, being a religious nut, you like that sort of pervy stuff anyway.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Godless not gormless,
My was Catholic until her teens and went to Catholic school as a child. She wasn’t taught that literal 6-day creation twaddle (that’s more the domain of the Fundamentalist Protestants). Even back then the nuns taught evolution to the students, but that “God created everything and guides evolution”. American Catholics, overall, aren’t as wingnutty as the Vatican crowd, though there still are the extremists.
March 6th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Buffy,
I was born into a catholic family myself and obviously brought up as a catholic. I can’t remember much teaching of the old testament and most of what I know of it has been down to my own reading of it very recently. I definitely took on a belief of god in my early years in primary school, but only because I felt that I had no choice really. I felt suffocated by god and cheated. I found the whole thing very oppressive but what could I do about it? He existed, he was watching everything I did and reading all my thoughts and wanted to punish me for both. Just like a big bad dad but so many times worse.
We were supposed to believe that god created us, we were supposed to believe in Adam & Eve too. Even Noah. We learned the catechism in those days and I remember clearly that I hated it very very much. We would have been sent home with a section of it to learn then, the next day, our fire breathing dragon of a teacher would pose a question from the book and someone would be picked out at random and made to stand up and repeat the answer. She got really angry if we couldn’t get it right! It all felt SO wrong! It was brainwashing in the extreme.
I was also never able to accept the miracles. Loaves and fishes, walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead, healing people with a touch or with words, turning water into wine and rising up from the dead. It all just seemed too far fetched to me, even at that young age. I think many young children feel this way. Many Atheists I have spoken to were exactly the same as me in that sense, though we all have our own tale to tell.
I asked my father about these things at around 14yo when I was actually taking a serious interest in ‘my’ religion. I asked about Adam & Eve, Noah, the miracles. These were crazy stories and I fully believed that he would be able to explain that they were somehow symbolic of something. His answers put an end to my belief instantly, to which of course I am eternally grateful. I HAD to accept them as fact. In the same conversation, he was telling me that god made us different to other creatures because he gave us the ability to think. “But”, I said, “if I think about these things they don’t make sense”. So, he explained faith to me and how no matter how absurd something might seem to us, we had to just accept it because it was god’s word and to do this is the only way to salvation. Even at 14yo, this was such an obvious con. This shows the level of maturity required to realise that religion is complete nonsense.
I definitely remember getting the 6 days story in school and I also remember my father being livid when I asked if I could watch David Attenborough’s Life On Earth series because my biology teacher had recommended that we do this to help us along with our course work. He let me watch it but only because of the link with school work. The look on his face told me just what he made of it all though. I tried to explain a few things to him which I had been learning in my biology higher class, but he would not listen. Evolution was all wrong to him and I have never personally heard any catholic clergy or teachers state anything to the contrary, though obviously this doesn’t mean that some don’t and I am not in any way disputing your claim. This is only my experience.
I suspect that my biology teacher had a different view but he never expressed it. I think he must have known that it was too bloody obvious! He showed us the evidence and it was plain to see. We are sooooooo linked to every other species in every way. It was a real eye opener for me, even though I never believed in the creation story in the first place. To see the proof that blew creation out of the water was very powerful. It made sense, and I have to say that I knew nothing of evolution up until that point, which I think says a lot about what catholicism and the catholics I came ito contact with were teaching me regarding creation.
I understand what you are saying about the fundies, and I admit that I seem to remember that we mostly concentrated on the new testament, but it is abundantly clear to me that my experience of Catholicism took the view that evolution was only a theory. God made us. Pure and simple. I suppose we will all have different experiences of religion and not all teachings and methods will concur. That’s just the way it is. That’s the beauty of Atheism too I suppose. We all know here we stand!
March 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I never remember evolution being discussed in school at least up to 18. I suppose they must have taught it at college level.
My sense is that, for all the lip-service the Catholic Church pays about accepting evolution, it was pretty deliberately excluded from our curriculum.
Even in biology they managed to avoid going into it, concentrating more on structures as they exist today.
It was only around the age of 22 that I read ‘The Selfish Gene’ and it all suddenly gelled for me.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Urmensch,
I don’t actually remember any discussion of evolution at school either, but the biology lessons covered areas which exposed us to the realities of the link between all other species and our own. I thought it was obvious anyway. At the same time, I don’t remember being taught that evolution was bad. I just don’t think it came up. In fact, I have no recollection of religious ‘education’ in secondary school at all. Strange. I never thought about that until now. We must have had it but I just don’t remember it.
Primary school was worse. It’s a crime and nothing short of child abuse how they are determined to get children as young as they can and expose them to ideas about god to make sure that belief in god is second nature. Especially if they use the threat of hell. I’ve seen it with my own son’s religious education books (he is opted out now and doesn’t have to listen to that crap any more) and I was stunned at how deliberate a tactic this actially is. I mentioned this to the head teacher and was shocked by her attitude too.
These people have no conscience. I am actually thinking about starting up a ‘parents against religion in education’ type group to campaign for indoctrination free education. It would be a bit like banging my head against a brick wall for now I admit, but everything has to start somewhere and I think education is the key to overcoming the influence religion has in our societies. We need more children to grow up free of this garbage so that in future, there will be far less (eventualy none I hope) religiously minded politicans scuppering the chances of a genuine separation of religion and state.
I’ve never done anything like this before so any advice or help would be appreciated. I intend to approach my local humanist group to ask for some advice actually. I have had dealings with them in the past and they were very helpful in giving me the information I needed to opt my son out of religious observation and education. They have a few ex teachers and ex education authority people in their membership and are doing great work in campaigning for this themselves.
I think that having a group for parents with children at school right now, could be of use though.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Godless,
I don’t have any kids myself but if I had I’d join your group.
It might be a good way to get people to question religious faith as an inherently good thing.
While it’s more common in America from twats like that Dinesh D’Souza writing about atheists being immoral, I reckon the self-satisfied sense that a religion makes them somehow superior is akin to the male chauvinism and racial bigotry of past generations.
March 7th, 2009 at 1:21 am
Urmensch,
I agree about the superiority thing, which is taken to extremes by islam of course.
One of the things I think would be good to concentrate on (and I know my local humanist group are big on this too) is the idea of changing the religious education choice from one of opting out to one of opting in. I think far less parents would opt their children in than would choose to opt them out, if you see what I mean.
I have spoken to parents who say “we’re not interested in religion so we’ll just let our kids make up their own mind when they get older”. This is fine, and many many people feel that way. The trouble is, they seem to think that having them participate in religious education is part of that. Ok, some people take the view that you should let them see both sides. But exposing them to religion from when they start school is just not fair on the children.
It’s not like they are introduced to it in an open minded manner. As you well know, they are told that it is a FACT that god exists not just that it’s an option if you want to go down that route. In any case, they are too young to be thinking about these things and for many of them, too young to be able to make a reasoned judgement for themselves. Especialy when they are faced with grown ups who they are learning from every day and who have a particular goal in mind. Namely, brainwashing these poor children into belief in god and a life of misery.
Here are a couple of quotes from the book my son would have been learning from this year had I not opted him out. This is part of the notes to the teacher preceding the actual lesson and is right at the start of the book:
Some characteristics of Five and Six year olds.
“The concept “I am special” rests easy with a young child. Children, particularly young children, are far more open than adults to being excited by their own unique gifts and talents. They are continuously discovering more about themselves and about their world. Everything is new and exciting. They are open and spontaneous, as yet unfettered by the conventions of adulthood, and can be easily motivated to celebrate and give thanks.”
And:
It goes on to say:
“At this stage, children imitate adult behaviour almost unconsciously. They identify with significant adults to the extent that they absorb their attitudes even if they don’t fully understand them.”
I think that makes their intentions very clear!
March 7th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Godless not gormless: I seem to remember, recently, having being asked to sign a petition, on the 10 Downing Street site, requesting that all religious education be removed from state funded schools. Of course, I may have dreamt it.
March 7th, 2009 at 11:40 am
newspaniard,
Thanks for that info. I’ll look for it but it you have a link you can post here that would be fantastic. If you’ve only dreamt it though, can you go back to that dream and dream that I also signed it please?
March 7th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Godless not gormless,
Changing it from opting out to opting in sounds like a good place to start.
Personally, I think that schools should not have religious education at all. Rather they should give civics classes that are totally secular. That way children of all faiths and none could learn how to relate to each without having to be separated and excluded.
Religion can be talked about within history lessons. If people want to give their children religious instruction they could make their own arrangements. The equivalent of Sunday school(or whatever Sabbath applies).
The Humanist proposal is probably the most realistic. Then, in the future, if there are so many people opting out that it becomes a waste of time and resources, they might look to a more secular alternative.
March 7th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Urmensch,
I couldn’t agree more. As you say, the opting in plan is just a first step. It will not be easy to get a result with this as religions are determined to keep their grip on education because they know that if they can’t get to our children when they are very young to brainwash them, it won’t be long before they are history.
Despite what we all would wish to happen, it has to be carried out in steps I think. As you pointed out, if the majority of people were not opting their children into religious lessons, it would be clear that religious lessons were not needed and schools could get on with the job of educating our children with facts. Religion could then be confined to places of worship and the homes of those who want religion in their lives.
Religious lessons in school could be left until secondary school where the subject could be approached from a historical and factual viewpoint. This would be enough to put anyone off for life!
This is clearly a problem though for the opting in plan. I’m sure religious leaders and politicians know this and would be dead against the opting in plan for this reason. The only good thing about all this and stories like the one about them renewing efforts to get at patients in hospitals, is that it shows that they are running scared. Unfortunately, with the influence they have on decision making, it’s not easy to get an even playing field. But then when was religion ever about being fair and doing the right thing
March 7th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Godless not gormless: It isn’t the one I dreamt I signed, but I found this one which petitions “…to ban the teaching of religion in school science lessons…”
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Sciencenotfaith/ (Expires 31 Mar 2009)
Sadly there are only 173 signatures (174 after mine has registered)
March 7th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
newspaniard,
Thanks for that link. Did you look at any of the signatures? This one was number 8 on the list. This moron signs a petition against something they believe in just to say they don’t agree with the petition.
“eveloution is unproven and just a theory, must teach all alternatives”
All things considered, I think this proves evolution and shows that it’s not finished yet. Don’t ya just love these people? They’re a great source of entertaynmunt, enturtaenmont, entretaynemend, enturtaignment SHIT! laughs
May 8th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Science has proved creation with Big Bang, even we have 100 million living fossils of creation . There is no chance in nature. Everything is creation by God. God prove himself with science.
__There is no any transitional forms for Theory of Evolution.
__Still, I can't understand how catholic world made this conference…