Quote:
Originally Posted by Scansion
Dennet's idea to teach religion in schools is genius, D'souza doesn't like it because he thinks there is an underlying atheist agenda there. Dennet proposes that we teach the history of religion from elementary school on up, nothing more than the facts of the history that can be agreed upon. D'souza explains the this isn't a good idea, but I honestly could not understand what he was talking about when he said he didn't like it. He really didn't say much more than "it's stupid", and then later said "I think it's a good idea, I just wouldn't want Dennet being in charge of it".
The questions at the end consisted of D'souza essentially dodging questions with poor analogies, while mentioning that Dawkins shouldn't claim things like religion evolve just because animals do. (I almost have a hard time believing he isn't a creationist with such a poor understanding of evolution) The one question directed at Dennet was "what if you're wrong?" in which he replied that while the scientific community asks this question regularly, the religious are in many cases encouraged to never consider it, for the stronger your faith is, the better.
when he says 'which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere' ... Maybe he goes into more detail in his book or from whatever source this is cited from, however my response is without this information.
I cant tell if I agree with this or not, but this made me think to what extent i would agree. I would agree that we could 'interfere' by means of social neglect, giving bad looks to this person, etc etc. However, unless the person is ... physically harming? his / her children by means of religion .. i don't think we should be able to interfere with the
freedom of religion.
To what extent under what circumstances would you guys say would allow for what 'interferences'?