« Christian education takes time | Main | Word-care in churches »

January 16, 2006



I too watched Dawkins last night - thought his approach to the issues he was rasing was rather poor.
In Scotland the education system is different and we don't have the new city school things that are being funded by "out side" bodies.
I too would have concerns about a school that was using the Bible in the way the school in the programme was - I mean it's not a maths, physics or chemistry book is it?

Exactly - the whole Bible is a textbook is deep problem in evangelical christianity.

The problem with Dawkins is he is only looking at the extremes of religion. I think the programme did open up some serious questions which Christianity and religion in general must face.

Andy S

He did seem to go for the 'easy targets' in his discussion of faith schools and his language throughout was intentionally aggressive. Describing religion as 'destructive' and the Bible's morals as 'poisonous' was, I believe, only telling half the story. His final comment that atheism is 'life affirming' can surely be countered with a look at the NT ethic of love and community.

Dave Rattigan

My main problem with Dawkins's assertion that no one in their right mind would look to a book like the Bible is that the same logic can be applied to *any* ancient source - and if it is, the only logical conclusion would be to refuse to learn anything from any ancient source that doesn't completely mirror our values. That would leave very little we can learn from the past, and strikes me as rather haughty - almost imperialistic.

i think as a christian at school that it would be much better if my school was a christian school as then i would learn more about God in and out of school ! also people judge christians as people that are different but i dnt think so as the only different thing is we love God and follow him!!!

andy goodliff

A A Gill in the Sunday Times writes about Dawkins (a little unfairly perhaps):
'He is such a terrible advertisement, such an awful embarrassment, the Billy Graham of the senior common room. His splenetic, small-minded, viciously vindictive falsetto rant at all belief that isn't completely rooted in the natural sciences is laughable. Dawkins is a born-again Darwinist, an atheist, so why is he devoting so much blood pressure and time to arguing with something he knows doesn't exist? If it's not there, Richard, why do you keep shouting at it? He looks like a scientific bag lady screaming at the traffic, and watching him argue with a funadmentalist Christian, you realise they were cut from identical cloth, separated at birth.'


the question is all about balance i think. You are right that Richard Dawkins, if he had his way, would probably see children 'indoctrinated' as atheists. Because that is where his sympathy lies: it is foolish for people to portray atheism as without it's vested interests... as if it is any less of a system.

I, too, have issues with the kind of place shown in the film Saved for example. which is not so much a school as a boot-camp in how to be a fundi.

but you are right, there is nothing fundimentally wrong with any school having it's religious or non-religious alligences... it just has to be about community rather than manipulating education.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad