The slow, whiny death of British Christianity

[wild_quinine]

Well then you've blown up this thread on a total non-issue.

Yes, I'm beginning to see where I went wrong.

I took this to mean that you believe religious indoctrination to be an absolute moral wrong. Like slavery.

This is becoming a joke, have you read anything else I've been saying on this thread? TAX PAYER FUNDED FAITH SCHOOLS.

Sorry. At the time, I thought you were making a serious analogy with the slavery thing, not just bringing out the big guns for effect. But looking back, I only entered this debate because of your misplaced assertions about the moral equivalence of fascism. You’ve got a knack, I'll give you that. Go-go-gadget Godwin.

Perhaps, but there is also world hunger, poverty and HIV to worry about, what's your point?

You're right there. I accept that. There's always something more important going on, but we do still need to deal with what’s on the table.

I am using the word 'dismantle' rather figuratively... This does not have to involve replacing teachers or management or throwing the baby out with the bath water as you are implying would happen.

There are really two issues at stake.

One of them is that I’m still not sure that we know why faith schools appear to perform well, and there is a real danger of throwing out the baby.

The other issue is that the band-aid ripping change you’re proposing would – in the real world – probably reduce the performance of any school to which it was applied, almost as a matter of course.

Changes pretty much always cause a negative disruption. Even name changes, let alone changes to fundamental philosophies. I don’t know if you have yet had enough experience in the world to have seen this first hand but, trust me, it’s a valuable lesson to learn.

In this case, for example, I think that it’s reasonable to assume that at least some of the hyper-religious parents would pull their children out, disrupting their education and altering the dynamic of the remaining population.

Some of the teachers would probably also leave - some of them might do so out of choice*, others might need to do so, if they were unable to immediately meet the requirements of the new curriculum which, as you've already said, would change.

Staff morale would probably take a hit, even amongst those who stayed, because it always bloody does when you enforce a change at short notice.

There would also, in the real world, most likely be public and political pressure to remove religious figureheads from the higher echelons of the school, which would probably mean a change of management.

And all that’s just to start with, before we even consider the effect on students of switching between syllabi midway into a course, or the reduction in time that teachers would be able to spend with students, or commenting on their work, as a result of all the additional paperwork.

And you know, I’m not even saying don’t make these changes. I’m just saying try to make sure you know what you’re getting into first, and maybe consider if there’s a way to do it which is less damaging to the academic success of the school.

I know, I know. I’m being all pragmatic again. I wish I was still an idealist, it used to be so simple.

(*Unless you're asking people with convictions to stay on against those convictions, because of your own conviction that they should? Good luck with that.)

I can only take this as an admission that a magic option is sitting on your table.... It's a last resort of the "well science doesn't know everything you know!" school of thought.

Whilst, by contrast, 'It's not possible because I don't like it' is the final bastion of rational argument.

Science does not know anything. It is a process.

It is, furthermore, an ongoing process, in which our knowledge is advanced by stages. Sometimes, through it, we realise that we have made mistakes in our understanding along the way. But this doesn't break the scientific process. Scientific practice itself is not invalidated by new and surprising discoveries. But firmly held beliefs about the world, well, they often are. No matter how common, or popular.

Even stand-up atheist Richard Dawkins holds that we will explain the things that are unexplained from the inside out, by filling in the spaces. Not from the outside in, by simply disapproving of the explanations we do not wish to accept.

So, yes, magic could very well exist. And I am absolutely and entirely comfortable with that.

It’s so unlikely, of course, that there is a magical explanation in any given circumstance that it’s not worth living your life as if nothing can be understood. For the record, I agree that it is hilariously unlikely that ‘magic’ is the reason why faith schools perform well. I think there's a very logical explanation that we may, or may not, have properly discovered.

But I want you to understand that expecting me to simply rule out the existence of magic (with a wand perhaps?) basically amounts to asking me to make a very specific religious commitment, and I do not share your faith.

It's not enough to assume that there are no other explanations for something simply because you can't think of any.

The converse is equally true. From a pragmatic point of view it's probably more true to say that because there are no explanations there may not be one. The more explanations that are ruled out the chance of an explanation existing tends to zero.

Let’s say we accept that. In both scenarios it still makes sense to investigate.

Correlation != Causation. I'm sure you've seen the pirates vs global temperature graph?
A causative link MUST necessarily be demonstrated otherwise we could spend all year listing things that correlate with each other.

I think you've completely missed the point of the correlation is not causation argument. In a case of strong, statistically significant correlation it is somewhat unlikely that there is no cause.

The point of highlighting that correlation != causation is not so that we can sweep correlations under the carpet. It is to avoid making the basic mistake of assuming a direct causal relationship from a narrow set of data.

It is, however, entirely sensible to go looking for more data, and to attempt to uncover the actual underlying cause of a known correlation. Indeed, depending on circumstances, it may be negligent not to do so.

Sidenote: This is probably my favourite XKCD strip of all time - http://xkcd.com/552/

If you want to disagree with the praciticalities of acheiving this then thats another conversation and one I'm not nearly as interested in. Indeed I made it quite clear early on that "I don't care how impractical it would be".

You are aware that there are two ways to interpret that sentence?

I don't think I chose the wrong one, if you go back and examine the context.

But feel free to explain that what you actually meant is that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the practical side of things. I could accept that.

I'm sure you can take comfort that the same arguments were used by Americans seeking to avoid a conflict with slave owners...

I presume, from your moralistic tone, that you’re against slavery in all forms, and that you don’t think, for example, that parents have the right to sell their children, even privately?

The slave trade is wrong, because slavery is wrong. Your tax money being spent on faith schools is only wrong, if religious indoctrination is wrong. You see that, right?

You think that religious indoctrination is wrong, fair enough, but not wrong enough to ban outright.

That kind of puts you at odds with your own analogy, surely?... I mean... you're not seriously suggesting that religious indoctrination and slavery have such similar moral values that you think slavery should be legal... ?

No? Well, I'd say that comparing this argument to that one is hollow at best. If the strength of your argument depends on the moral value of the subject, then swapping it out for another and claiming that it's the same moral argument is flat-out false.

Which, in fact, is precisely where we came in on this, back when I was trying to correct what I thought was a simple category error.

Not so much, then.

Perhaps you hold the position that it would've been better to just phase out slavery a bit more gradually and continue to appease slave owners so as not to rock the boat

I'm not against rocking the boat. But tipping the boat over and drowing everyone on board looks like a tantrum, not a plan. But then, you're not interested in the practical side of things, huh? That's for us slavertraders to contend with.

What a lovely inference, by the way. I like that you made a little extra post, as if to strengthen this particular point.

No, no. You're quite right, it is entirely appropriate to suggest that maybe just possibly I’m a greedy, racist, slavetrading monster because, after all, I disagree with you on a point of fucking principle, from the same side of the argument, simply because I have erred by showing respect for any other point of view than your own on a matter which is complex and, frankly, far from decided.

Spectacular. You’re a real team player. I can feel the tolerance from all the way over here.

[Haunted]

Yes, I'm beginning to see where I went wrong.

And here I was typing paragraph after paragraph when I realised there's no need.
Perhaps you've been mistaking my attacks on your arguments as attacks on your character. Quite frankly, I don't care who you are or what kind of person you are, I care about what you're trying to argue.
For the practicalities of removing faith schools, I of course have no experience in this, but just because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I am interested in the should/shouldn't debate about dismantling faith schools, how they go about doing so isn't quite to interesting and you could possibly be right about everything you've said on that, I don't care.
This is where my analogy with slavery has it's explanatory power. It was immoral to allow slavery therefore it was abolished despite being an economic nightmare.
Also, analogies are just that, if you take them too far you end up getting distracted by unimportant details.

But I want you to understand that expecting me to simply rule out the existence of magic (with a wand perhaps?) basically amounts to asking me to make a very specific religious commitment, and I do not share your faith.

I almost let this go because it's quite ridiculous. Science cannot rule out anything of course, especially magic, but to even consider it a possibility because 'there is no evidence to the contrary' is childish. You could spend countless lifetimes conceiving of things that may be. Magical unicorns, are they responsible for faith schools? Your line of thinking is "well...maybe? Ridiculous, because it's unknowable and if it's unknowable it's a complete waste of everyone's time. Oh and the faith jibe is cute and original. For the record here's my favourite XKCD
http://xkcd.com/774/

[RedCelt69]

Changes pretty much always cause a negative disruption. Even name changes, let alone changes to fundamental philosophies. I don’t know if you have yet had enough experience in the world to have seen this first hand but, trust me, it’s a valuable lesson to learn.

Your list of (possible) disruptions are all short-term. If the long-term result is a greater good, the short-term issues are precisely that... and (relatively) meaningless. Surely?

I don't have a great concern about faith schools, as such. People are allowed to do what people want to do... their brain, their faith, their rights. With the old caveat that it mustn't interfere with other people being able to do what they want to do.

But there's a bigger picture involved, here. Much bigger than the existence or non-existence of faith schools.

Should parents be able to religiously indoctrinate their children? Pragmatically, it would be very difficult to prevent... short of something that Plato covered in The Republic... or the Spartans covered in reality; the separation of a child's upbringing from their parents.

Which isn't what I'm suggesting.

There isn't an easy answer. Parents have a moral duty to raise their children into socially-acceptable adults. This involves teaching them morality. Sadly, for the religiously-minded, morality often can't be divorced from their religion.

[wild_quinine]

Perhaps you've been mistaking my attacks on your arguments as attacks on your character.

Also my patience.

For the practicalities of removing faith schools, I of course have no experience in this, but just because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

No, I agree that it should be done.

I also have no experience of dismantling faith schools, and I'm with you in as far as that I don't think it would be much fun as a job. But I do have some transferable skills in the area of re-organisation, and I can tell you that everybody always underestimates impact.

This is where my analogy with slavery has it's explanatory power. It was immoral to allow slavery therefore it was abolished despite being an economic nightmare.
Also, analogies are just that, if you take them too far you end up getting distracted by unimportant details.

I'm a big fan of analogies. Yes, it's possible to chase them down a rabbit hole and lose the whole thread of an argument. I don't like to do that, either.

But in this case, I don't find the slavery analogy satisfactory, even on the face of it. As well as being needlessly confrontational - some of which is in the presentation, of course - it is a moral bait-and-switch.

See:

Me: X is bad. We should do something about it. But it can possibly wait until we understand the situation more completely.

You: Y was bad. We had to do something about it. But it was massively morally urgent. Therefore X is massively morally urgent as well*.

It doesn't work, because X and Y, the subjects of the anology, are conclusively not comparable for moral value, and the decision in question is a trade off against that value.

(* For added flavour: And because you don't agree with me about X, you probably like Y. That's your favourite thing, that is.)

Science cannot rule out anything of course, especially magic, but to even consider it a possibility because 'there is no evidence to the contrary' is childish... Ridiculous, because it's unknowable and if it's unknowable it's a complete waste of everyone's time.

But I don't spend any more time on it than you do*. I accept that there are some things that we know, and some that we don't know, and I work with what we've got. In fact, as I hope you can see, I'm actually very pragmatic when things need to be done. Why not simply say nothing of that which we do not know, since we can't do anything with it?

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to expand the realm of our understanding, of course! But there is an established methodology for that, and it's not called 'Because I said so'.

So, really, there doesn't need to be any functional difference between my position and your position.

The only difference is that, between the two of us, one of us is intent on making truth statements about that which we do not know. All I'm saying is, we don't know it. I'm not going to present any facts on the matter.

But you're saying more than that. You're saying "There is much that we do not know. But it cannot be something that I personally find ridiculous."

Well, of course it could. It just probably isn't.

But the fact that you have this compelling need to make an absolute statement on the matter, in the absence of any evidence, is not something that I share.

(* Well, not entirely true. I have conversations like this one, and I think about it kind of a lot. But I'd only be watching telly or something instead. You could certainly hold my position, and not give the realm of the unknown a second thought.)

Oh and the faith jibe is cute and original.

Yes, I remain proud of that.

For the record here's my favourite XKCD
http://xkcd.com/774/

Point taken - but if we didn't think our views were better than the alternatives, we wouldn't have them.

Your list of (possible) disruptions are all short-term. If the long-term result is a greater good, the short-term issues are precisely that... and (relatively) meaningless. Surely?

Yes, and no. Mostly they could be recovered from, I think, and maybe in good time. (Although we shouldn't underestimate how hard it can be to bring the morale of an organisation back from a decaying orbit.)
I think that in a worst-case scenario the effects on individual pupils could be quite far reaching, which might have long term effects on some of their prospects, or self confidence.

But I'm not suggesting that we don't make necessary changes, I'm suggesting that we evaluate how to make those changes. For starters, it would generally be considered outrageous to make such a change in the middle of a term. But you might manage over a summer. Could it be this summer, or would more preparation be required? Probably couldn't be less than 12 months to avoid certain planning issues? That sort of thing, only to the nth degree.

And, of course, against this is the trade-off. It has to go. How urgent is this? Is it so wrong, that it's worth causing chaos over? The answer might very well be yes, I make no pronouncements there. I tend to the idea of a sensible withdrawal over time, but I know that other people feel more strongly. It's an open question, still.

But there's a bigger picture involved, here...

Should parents be able to religiously indoctrinate their children? ... There isn't an easy answer. Parents have a moral duty to raise their children into socially-acceptable adults. This involves teaching them morality. Sadly, for the religiously-minded, morality often can't be divorced from their religion.

Agreed. This is an interesting question. It doesn't usually get the treatment it deserves. Which is not to say that people don't think about it a lot. Just that they often don't do it very well.

I'm not sure I can, either. Definitely not at this hour. I'll think about it some and come back. I reckon that the way to do this is to identify the individual components of the argument as cleanly as possible. See what we can be mostly sure of, and then try to figure out where the problems are. Some of the problem is a conflict in values, I think.

[RedCelt69]

Agreed. This is an interesting question. It doesn't usually get the treatment it deserves. Which is not to say that people don't think about it a lot. Just that they often don't do it very well.

Well, here's some thoughts to add into the mix:-

A child raised as a Catholic will feel unneccesary guilt when the body decides that masturbation is the latest trendy thing that needs to be done. Or, less messily, plain old lewd thoughts. Guilt is a big part of the Catholic ideal, along with some segments of other brands of Christianity. It plays a role in Judaism, too. Self-chastisement for the perfectly natural is a cruel punishment... and one that (to some) constitutes child cruelty. Such problems carry on into adulthood, too.

Or, moving to the extremes of religion, you have the less-than-marvelous imagery of children marching with their parents wearing T-shirts emblazened with "God Hates Fags" across them. Really? That child has contemplated the rights and wrongs and, independently, arrived at the same extreme conclusion as their parents?

And the classic example of the children of Jehovas Witnesses deprived of medical care which contravenes the (religious) parental interpretation of biblical passages.

Every fringe element, whether religious or political (children at White Supremacist rallies) can all too easily be thrust upon children and, just as horribly, matured into adulthood. Generation begets generation.

Is there a line that can't be crossed? If so, what is it - and who decides?

Edit: There was an interesting 4-part series on Channel 4 recently that deserves to be watched:
Amish: World's Squarest Teenagers

[Haunted]

I'm a big fan of analogies. Yes, it's possible to chase them down a rabbit hole and lose the whole thread of an argument. I don't like to do that, either.
But in this case, I don't find the slavery analogy satisfactory, even on the face of it. As well as being needlessly confrontational - some of which is in the presentation, of course - it is a moral bait-and-switch.

No I'm not saying that slavery is morally equivalent to state funded faith schools, don't take that away from this. The purpose of the analogy was to illustrated that issues of practicality should have no influence on the moral dilemma.
When I say "your arguments are similar to those used to defend slavery" I mean just that and no more. The impression I got from your arguments was that:
X is bad, but it would require action A to fix, action A is difficult therefore we should refrain.
Action A may be incredibly difficult, I'm not concerned with it. If we're both on the page that X is bad then that's it.

I accept that there are some things that we know, and some that we don't know, and I work with what we've got. In fact, as I hope you can see, I'm actually very pragmatic when things need to be done. Why not simply say nothing of that which we do not know, since we can't do anything with it?

You're not taking this far enough. You can never say anything with certainty. Certainty only exists abstractly in things like mathematics. This being the case, in the real world, though we must grant that anything may go, most things imagined are so astronomically unlikely that, for the purposes of getting anything done, they would be as well thought of as impossible and dismissed. For the purposes of our discussion it is foolish to even discuss things like magic. As you have said yourself, there is a time and place for such matters, and debating a real issue is not it.

The only difference is that, between the two of us, one of us is intent on making truth statements about that which we do not know. All I'm saying is, we don't know it. I'm not going to present any facts on the matter.

I hope you've realised by now that I am not making absolute statements about the existence of magical unicorns.

But you're saying more than that. You're saying "There is much that we do not know. But it cannot be something that I personally find ridiculous."

No I'm saying it's not practical to discuss such things in this topic, otherwise we would never get anything done (oh wait here we are).

[Anon.]

Or, moving to the extremes of religion, you have the less-than-marvelous imagery of children marching with their parents wearing T-shirts emblazened with "God Hates Fags" across them. Really? That child has contemplated the rights and wrongs and, independently, arrived at the same extreme conclusion as their parents?

How about 2.57 in the youtube clip you posted Re: Anti-Gay Bishop appointed to School of Divinity on 18 August?

(I would have posted a screenshot of it but I can't work out how to do it. I knew how to on the old Sinner! And Oli's help pages were much better as well.)

[RedCelt69]

Or, moving to the extremes of religion, you have the less-than-marvelous imagery of children marching with their parents wearing T-shirts emblazened with "God Hates Fags" across them. Really? That child has contemplated the rights and wrongs and, independently, arrived at the same extreme conclusion as their parents?

How about 2.57 in the youtube clip you posted Re: Anti-Gay Bishop appointed to School of Divinity on 18 August?

(I would have posted a screenshot of it but I can't work out how to do it. I knew how to on the old Sinner! And Oli's help pages were much better as well.)

The kid with "My Mommies Rule" on it? Most kids (certainly pre-adolescents) think that their mommy/mummy rules. Which should be no less true if they had 2 mommies.

It's in the same league of advertising-without-consent with children, but you'd be hard-pressed to challenge the authenticity of those feelings.

[jollytiddlywink]

'My mommies rule' is a case of a child loving their parents. It happens all the time. It is just that, in this case, it seems like something more, because people who feel the need to intrude on the lives of others have turned the issue of 'mommies' or 'daddies' into a political football, and the mommies and daddies themselves into punching bags.

Believing in a deity (or not) is a learned behaviour. Loving your parents is hard-wired. And therein is the difference.