Anglicans exclude the US Episcopalians over gay bishops

[jeremyp]

No, neither of those fallacies, Shakes.  You have expressed your opinion, I stated that there are billions who have a different opinion.  At no point did I say that numbers (or lack of them) proved that either position was correct.  Your reference to the fallacy concept would seem to suggest that you think that the numbers do prove correctness.
As I am sure you are aware, you cannot - in law - be the evidence for something you have done (or not done).  Nor can science be the evidence for itself.

Probably the only religious sect in the World that gets close to claiming a billion people having the same opinion about religious truths is th Catholic Church that claims a billion followers although I suspect its figures are inflated   

Take a typical Catholic belief: transubstantiation.  Christians cannot agree amongst themselves if it is true or not and there is no way to verify or falsify it. Compare that to general relativity. You won't find many scientists who do not think it is an accurate model of gravity. Furthermore if you doubt it, you can read the literature and find experiments that you can repeat to verify it.

Frankly your posts on here are duplicitous lies. Either that or your ignorance of science is so appalling that you really should shut up about it.

[Leonard James]

Dear Rhiannon, Shaker and Leonard,

But what do you replace religious education with, it is vitally important.

From the moment our kids wake up in the morning till the time they go to sleep our kids are bombarded with bullshit, the perfect body, the must have trainers, the latest fashion accessories, we have obesity in young kids, we have kids suffering from anorexia.

Instead of simply stating, beliefs are not facts, religion should not be taught in schools, what do you replace it with, what are your answers to greed, gluttony, envy, jealousy, pride ( what's the other two ) these are vitally important subjects that should be discussed in schools from a very early age.

Me and Leonard had a similar discussion about a week ago, he mentioned that spanish kids are taught citizenship, I looked it up, British kids have something similar, but it hardly touches on what Christians call sins and anyway, it is an add on, it is an also, it does not top English and Arithmetic, where are your answers to our children's problems, you won't find them in arithmetic and you certainly won't find them in I before E except after C.

Gonnagle.

Absolutely, Gonners! Morality should be at the forefront of children's education ... preferably from infancy. Without it society would fall apart.

[wigginhall]

But it is still based on purely human understanding.  There is no independent (external to humanity) confirmation of what human scientists understand.  Everything depends on observations, hypotheses and predictions that are checked and established by humans.

So you are saying that we should get rid of science?  I don't think that you would seriously suggest that, because, as you know,  science works.   It works because it is empirical, and provisional, and it is capable of changing, if the data change. 

Talking of the 'purely human' is absurd.   If you think that science is suspect for that reason, I suggest that you immediately give up all the appliances which science has made possible, including computers, phones, fridges, cookers, and TVs, and so on.  Are you ready to make this sacrifice?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Good to see a scientist pointing out that science is the best.  Where is the objectivity in this point?

Oh dear. The objectivity is what you get when you test the claims. Let's say that "the scientist" tells us that if you jump out of a tenth storey window you'll hit the deck shortly thereafter; the theist says that a god will float you gently to the ground; the leprechaunist says that you'll ride a magic rainbow to a pot of gold, the etc etc.

All we need do then is to have someone jump out of the window and to observe the results. And if a sample of one isn't enough to be reasonably sure, then have 99 more people do it. Eventually one of the possible conjectures will be deemed to be a fact, and for most common-or-garden purposes we call that "objective".

Now that's not to say that the truth thus arrived at isn't probabilistic - how would we know whether on the bajillionth jump someone wouldn't float sideways for example? - but it is to say that science is objectively enough "the best" compared with the alternatives, for which there's no validating feedback at all.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

I don't think you could have possibly read what I put....for if you had you would see that if religion had the same rights as those I mentioned....there would be faith schools and bishops in the House of Lords.

To remove those rights would constitute special pleading.

As ever, you have it backwards. We expressly do not have, say, children educated at Marxist-Leninist schools, or at Maoist schools, or at schools rooted in any other dogmatic ideological frame of reference...

...except that is for religious schools.

For some reason that special privilege is afforded only to one type of ideology. Remove the faith schools and only then would we have equal treatment. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Vlunderer,

As ever, you have it backwards. We expressly do not have, say, children educated at Marxist-Leninist schools, or at Maoist schools, or at schools rooted in any other dogmatic ideological frame of reference...

...except that is for religious schools.

For some reason that special privilege is afforded only to one type of ideology. Remove the faith schools and only then would we have equal treatment.

Exactly - why Vlad can't see that is beyond me.

I can undress and that someone might think it reasonable for religions to have a special privilege to allow them to run state funded schools according to their own belief system, while other ideologies aren't afforded that privilege (I'd disagree of course). But I cannot see how anyone can fail to recognise that it is a special privilege.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

As ever, you have it backwards. We expressly do not have, say, children educated at Marxist-Leninist schools, or at Maoist schools, or at schools rooted in any other dogmatic ideological frame of reference...

...except that is for religious schools.

For some reason that special privilege is afforded only to one type of ideology. Remove the faith schools and only then would we have equal treatment.

It's time to raise the curtain, it's time to light the lights.........
Oh dear.......if a conservative peer who runs a carpet warehouse chain has the freedom to run a chain of schools then it is special pleading to say that a religion cannot run a school. AC Grayling and his atheist colleagues established a university and as far as I know are free to open a state financed school. It is therefore special pleading to prevent a religion running a school.
These facts render your post what it is........a pile of Dingos Kidneys.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

It's time to raise the curtain, it's time to light the lights.........

Oh dear.......if a conservative peer who runs a carpet warehouse chain has the freedom to run a chain of schools then it is special pleading to say that a religion cannot run a school. AC Grayling and his atheist colleagues established a university and as far as I know are free to open a state financed school. It is therefore special pleading to prevent a religion running a school.

These facts render your post what it is........a pile of Dingos Kidneys.

Wow - when you do stupid, there are no half measures are there?

The butt-clenchingly obvious point that passes you by entirely is that it's the content of the education that matters here. Whether a tory peer, a chartered surveyor or a parrot trainer happens to fund the school is neither here nor there - the special privilege uniquely afforded to the religious is that the get to teach the content of their ideologies and dogmas to the students, whereas none of the others would be allowed to.

And that's special pleading.

Enjoy your kidneys.     

[Owlswing]

Take a typical Catholic belief: transubstantiation.  Christians cannot agree amongst themselves if it is true or not and there is no way to verify or falsify it.

Don't talk nonsense! It is very simple to verify it it!

Take the chalice and the plate from the priest immediately after he has changed it and test the contents to see they are human blood and flesh or not!

I am offering big odds that, one, they will not be and two, that the priest will fight to the death rather than let you have trhe material in order to check it!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Wow - when you do stupid, there are no half measures are there?

The butt-clenchingly obvious point that passes you by entirely is that it's the content of the education that matters here. Whether a tory peer, a chartered surveyor or a parrot trainer happens to fund the school is neither here nor there - the special privilege uniquely afforded to the religious is that the get to teach the content of their ideologies and dogmas to the students, whereas none of the others would be allowed to.

And that's special pleading.

Enjoy your kidneys.     

I think you'll find the sponsor of an academy or the governing body of a free school can input into the curriculum.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

I think you'll find the sponsor of an academy or the governing body of a free school can input into the curriculum.

I think you'll find that - with the sole exception of religious beliefs - no sponsor can have the curriculum teach whatever ideology he happens to have. Academies have more freedom than non-academies, but the content of the curriculum is still fairly tightly defined.

Are you seriously suggesting that a school could teach Maoism if the sponsor happened to be a Maoist?

Now how about creationism?

Do you get it now?

How were the kidneys?   

[jeremyp]

Don't talk nonsense! It is very simple to verify it it!

Take the chalice and the plate from the priest immediately after he has changed it and test the contents to see they are human blood and flesh or not!

I am offering big odds that, one, they will not be and two, that the priest will fight to the death rather than let you have trhe material in order to check it!

I don't know how you as a non Catholic can post that.

However, in all seriousness, they would claim that it does change but that scientific means are not capable of detecting the change.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

I think you'll find that - with the sole exception of religious beliefs - no sponsor can have the curriculum teach whatever ideology he happens to have. Academies have more freedom than non-academies, but the content of the curriculum is still fairly tightly defined.

Are you seriously suggesting that a school could teach Maoism if the sponsor happened to be a Maoist?

Now how about creationism?

Do you get it now?

How were the kidneys?

I know that you prefer wild and extreme exemplars not usually based in fact hillside but a schools ethos is reflected in the curriculum. I've just been looking at documentation for Consett college where a sponsor is committed to a " Business Ethos" for the school.......A business ethos ............If a sponsor is free to establish a business ethos then it is special pleading to prevent a religious ethos or a communist ethos for that matter.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

I know that you prefer wild and extreme exemplars not usually based in fact hillside...

You know no such thing because it isn't true. Why bother with yet more porkies - its just tiresome these days...

... but a schools ethos is reflected in the curriculum. I've just been looking at documentation for Consett college where a sponsor is committed to a " Business Ethos" for the school.......A business ethos ............If a sponsor is free to establish a business ethos then it is special pleading to prevent a religious ethos or a communist ethos for that matter.

Oh dear. A "business ethos" is just a particular approach based still on the national curriculum - presumably it emphasises, say, economics rather than some other subjects. What it isn't though is the replacement of the curriculum with an ideology that happens to be the personal faith of the sponsor.

If ever someone tried that with, say, a Marxist-Leninist curriculum they'd be stopped. Yet a creationist agenda (a more meaningful comparison) seems to be fine and dandy.

Surely it's sinking in now isn't it?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

You know no such thing because it isn't true. Why bother with yet more porkies - its just tiresome these days...

Oh dear. A "business ethos" is just a particular approach based still on the national curriculum - presumably it emphasises, say, economics rather than some other subjects. What it isn't though is the replacement of the curriculum with an ideology that happens to be the personal faith of the sponsor.

If ever someone tried that with, say, a Marxist-Leninist curriculum they'd be stopped. Yet a creationist agenda (a more meaningful comparison) seems to be fine and dandy.

Surely it's sinking in now isn't it?   

It's special pleading all the way down with you isn't it. An ethos of a school is a foundation for the pupils life.If a business ethos is permissible then not allowing a religious ethos is special pleading.

We directly know that Marxist Leninist experiments failed and all tended to become oppressive. I guess that's why they are not encouraged.

Christianity is compariible with business in that while there have been excesses through both, business and Christianity need not tend that way.

I don't suppose there is any objection toward a secular humanist ethos. Therefore to prevent a religious ethos is special pleading.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

It's special pleading all the way down with you isn't it.

The only special pleading here is the special pleading you're allowing religious schools that isn't allowed to other ideologies.

An ethos of a school is a foundation for the pupils life.If a business ethos is permissible then not allowing a religious ethos is special pleading.

Oh dear. An ethos is fine – teaching as facts, say, creationism isn't an ethos at all though - it's the wholesale introduction of an ideology replete with its own "facts".

We directly know that Marxist Leninist experiments failed and all tended to become oppressive. I guess that's why they are not encouraged.

As opposed to the well-known success stories that is theocracies?

Either way, that isn't the reason at all. No-one says, "you can't teach Marxist-Leninism because that's been tried and failed". What they do say though is that you cannot just teach ideologies in place of the facts and methods of the national curriculum - unless that is that ideology happens to be a religious one 

Christianity is compariible with business in that while there have been excesses through both, business and Christianity need not tend that way.

Utter bullsihit - religion entails faith and dogma, and so it's much more akin to political ideologies. "Business" on the other hand concerns real world practices and processes.

I don't suppose there is any objection toward a secular humanist ethos. Therefore to prevent a religious ethos is special pleading.

As ever, you confuse the absence of something with the presence of something. What exactly do you think a "secular humanist" approach would entail that's in any way comparable with a religious one?

Good grief!   

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

But Gonners, who was to blame for my generation being screwed up? My parents? Who screwed them up? It's never-ending. But I tell you this: when it comes to teaching selflessness, kindness and empathy schools can only do so much; it is what a child learns from the cradle in their family and community that shapes that rather than anything picked up through education.

Ah well!! here's the thing ( well apart from the fact that I am slightly pissed ) in a discussion many moons ago when I stood up for Aristotle and Plato, I was told that they wanted the child taken from their parents at a early age, well the gist was that parents were unfit to teach the child, and I see something like that happening in todays society.

Parents will move house, will lie, will cheat to have their kids in the best education, the gentry will talk about Oxford and Cambridge, my question is, who are the best educators of a childs morals his/her ethics.

Gonnagle.

PS: good thread, as always lots of unanswered questions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

The only special pleading here is the special pleading you're allowing religious schools that isn't allowed to other ideologies.

Oh dear. An ethos is fine – teaching as facts, say, creationism isn't an ethos at all though - it's the wholesale introduction of an ideology replete with its own "facts".

As opposed to the well-known success stories that is theocracies?

Either way, that isn't the reason at all. No-one says, "you can't teach Marxist-Leninism because that's been tried and failed". What they do say though is that you cannot just teach ideologies in place of the facts and methods of the national curriculum - unless that is that ideology happens to be a religious one 

Utter bullsihit - religion entails faith and dogma, and so it's much more akin to political ideologies. "Business" on the other hand concerns real world practices and processes.

As ever, you confuse the absence of something with the presence of something. What exactly do you think a "secular humanist" approach would entail that's in any way comparable with a religious one?

Good grief!

I knew it would eventually come down to your opinionated anti religious attitude. I intuited that you had thrown the towel in and what you really want to say was that you believe that Christianity is comparible to Maoism. That is another argument.

What I think of a secular humanist curriculum is that if it can dissociate itself from the excesses of the NSS and BHA then I have no problem. It certainly has the freedom to run a school.

[ippy]

I don't think you could have possibly read what I put....for if you had you would see that if religion had the same rights as those I mentioned....there would be faith schools and bishops in the House of Lords.

To remove those rights would constitute special pleading.

Now you really have gone off of the rails vlad, you'll never get secularism, it looks like it's beyond you to be able to understand the aims of secularism, if you had the slightest idea of what secularism is all about you wouldn't write any posts like the one I'm replying to.

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

AC Grayling and his atheist colleagues established a university ...

Three points:

1. This is a university - we aren't talking about universities, we are talking about state funded schools. You do understand the difference.

2. The New College of the Humanities is a liberal arts university - it isn't a secular humanist university. Don't forget that Grayling is first and foremost an academic philosopher. And it hasn't been set up by 'atheists' but has a range of religions and none in its founding faculty - so last time I looked Zeinab Badawi and Howard Jacobson just to give a couple of examples weren't prominent atheists.

3. The New College of the Humanities is a private institution - it doesn't receive state funding. The debate here is about state funded schools. I have no issue with people setting up religious schools without state funding, providing they meet the existing criteria for registration as schools.

[Hope]

But this is irrelevant, isn't it?

Not in the context of the series of posts that this is the latest in.  After all, in order to be able to understand what is happening across the globe today, we have to look at the various issues that impact on hman behaviour - today - not merely historically.  Therefore we need to teach about religion in the same way that we have to teach about science (unfortunately, that is pretty much all that happens in modern science lessons), about language, about maths/history/geography/music/etc.

[Hope]

I don't think you could have possibly read what I put....for if you had you would see that if religion had the same rights as those I mentioned....there would be faith schools and bishops in the House of Lords.

To remove those rights would constitute special pleading.

Actually, Vlad, 'if religion had the same rights as those (you) mentioned', there wouldn't be only CofE bishops in the House of Lords, as Lords Spiritual.  There would be leaders of other Anglican groupings, and other Christian denominations such as RC, Baptist, Methodist; as well as Muslim imams, Hindu and Jewish priests, Pagan representatives, leaders of the BHA, etc.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

I knew it would eventually come down to your opinionated anti religious attitude. I intuited that you had thrown the towel in and what you really want to say was that you believe that Christianity is comparible to Maoism. That is another argument.

Oh dear. Yet again, you confuse “ethos” with content. Ethos is the character of a culture or community expressed through its attitudes and behaviours. Thus a school could have a business-orientated ethos by focusing more on some subjects that others.

Content on the other hand involves introducing your own facts – like “god”, “resurrection”, “hell” etc which only the religious are allowed to do.

Why is this simple difference so difficult for you to grasp?

What I think of a secular humanist curriculum is that if it can dissociate itself from the excesses of the NSS and BHA then I have no problem. It certainly has the freedom to run a school.

No doubt you’ll be able to provide us with some examples of these supposed “excesses” then?

Would you like your towel back?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Oh dear. Yet again, you confuse “ethos” with content. Ethos is the character of a culture or community expressed through its attitudes and behaviours. Thus a school could have a business-orientated ethos by focusing more on some subjects that others.

Content on the other hand involves introducing your own facts – like “god”, “resurrection”, “hell” etc which only the religious are allowed to do.

Why is this simple difference so difficult for you to grasp?

No doubt you’ll be able to provide us with some examples of these supposed “excesses” then?

Would you like your towel back?

In an education setting ethos is part of the content. It is the extracurricular part of the education but it can also be part of the curriculum. Pupils in a school with a business ethos will be encourage to run and operate business units within that school and may well put aside special days for that.

[ProfessorDavey]

In an education setting ethos is part of the content. It is the extracurricular part of the education but it can also be part of the curriculum. Pupils in a school with a business ethos will be encourage to run and operate business units within that school and may well put aside special days for that.

Pupils do that in all sorts of schools (they certainly are encouraged to do that in the one my kids go to and there are 'curriculum enhancement days' set aside to provide tome) whether or not the school has a 'business ethos' - indeed I'm not sure I can think of a school that describes itself as having a 'business ethos'.

My school certainly doesn't consider itself to have a 'business ethos' - whatever that means.