“Christianity had no place in education or in schools” How far do you agree?
Christianity has a beneficial place in education and in schools, as the church had provided
much support for the development of education and when children are taught Christian
teachings, they are taught to show love and respect. However, there can be issues if all other
ways of thinking are ignored. Therefore, Christianity does have a place in education as long as it
is balanced with teaching about science, other religions etc.
Dawkins would argue that having Christian schools is a form of indoctrination as it forces
children into a certain way of thinking before they have the capacity to consent to it. He feels
this type of group thinking should actually be what we protect our children from, rather than
forcing them into it. However, Dawkin’s suggests that Christianity having a role in education has
only ever harmed children. The reality is that that the church was the first to educate the poor
and even now, 1.8 million children are educated in Catholic of CofE schools. Christianity being
involved in schools has bought great benefits to children who might not have even had the
chance to have an education otherwise. Therefore, to say it has no place in education at all is
potentially harmful. In Dawkins’ defence, he does use specific examples to support his
argument that Christian schools have been the cause of physical and psychological harms for
some. For example, he cites the child abuse that has come out of Irish Catholic girls’ schools.
Though there are certainly people who have had negative experiences within Christian
education, it is unfair to apply this to all schools when there are also people who have had very
positive experiences with Christian education. Moreover, Dawkins appears to suggest that
removing religion from education would solve these issues. The likelihood is that child abuse
also happens in non-religious schools, suggesting it is not the fact that Christianity is playing a
role in the education that is causing physical harm. Thus, Dawkins fails to justify why
Christianity should be removed from education.
The most compelling argument for religion not having a place in education is that children will
not be taught scientific theories, despite there being ample evidence for them. This is
particularly concerning within fundamentalist communities where they take the bible literally
and believe the creation story to be real. However, to exclude all religion from education would
be to allow the extreme to fall the other ways as children’s focus would be exclusively on
scientific views of the world. Schools can still be religious as long as it is taught in moderation.
In fact, having religious schools can allow children to gain a more rounded outlook as they will
learn both scientific and religious theories, which will ultimately help them better understand
the views of those around them. Dawkins highlights the risk that comes with Christianity having
a place in education as “from their earliest years unquestioning faith is a virtue.” For Dawkins,
there is no need to teach children to be sceptic and teach them of a God there is no evidence for
when living in a scientific age. On the other hand, it is arguable that it can be equally as harmful
to teach children to never question science and believe everything they are told, especially
because modern technology etc is so new that findings may change in the future. Moreover,
Dawkins is guilty of using only extreme examples to demonstrate his point. In extreme
communities, like the fundamentalists, there may be an issue of children not being taught
science. However, the majority of Christian schools still have dedicated science teachers,
pupils leave with GCSEs in science etc. Teaching Christianity and teaching science can exist
together in education.
One may argue that by having Christian schools, children are raised in a way that will cause
them to be intolerant of others in later life. This is because they will not have been exposed to as
much diversity growing up. Yet this argument unreasonably assumes that diversity can only
Christianity has a beneficial place in education and in schools, as the church had provided
much support for the development of education and when children are taught Christian
teachings, they are taught to show love and respect. However, there can be issues if all other
ways of thinking are ignored. Therefore, Christianity does have a place in education as long as it
is balanced with teaching about science, other religions etc.
Dawkins would argue that having Christian schools is a form of indoctrination as it forces
children into a certain way of thinking before they have the capacity to consent to it. He feels
this type of group thinking should actually be what we protect our children from, rather than
forcing them into it. However, Dawkin’s suggests that Christianity having a role in education has
only ever harmed children. The reality is that that the church was the first to educate the poor
and even now, 1.8 million children are educated in Catholic of CofE schools. Christianity being
involved in schools has bought great benefits to children who might not have even had the
chance to have an education otherwise. Therefore, to say it has no place in education at all is
potentially harmful. In Dawkins’ defence, he does use specific examples to support his
argument that Christian schools have been the cause of physical and psychological harms for
some. For example, he cites the child abuse that has come out of Irish Catholic girls’ schools.
Though there are certainly people who have had negative experiences within Christian
education, it is unfair to apply this to all schools when there are also people who have had very
positive experiences with Christian education. Moreover, Dawkins appears to suggest that
removing religion from education would solve these issues. The likelihood is that child abuse
also happens in non-religious schools, suggesting it is not the fact that Christianity is playing a
role in the education that is causing physical harm. Thus, Dawkins fails to justify why
Christianity should be removed from education.
The most compelling argument for religion not having a place in education is that children will
not be taught scientific theories, despite there being ample evidence for them. This is
particularly concerning within fundamentalist communities where they take the bible literally
and believe the creation story to be real. However, to exclude all religion from education would
be to allow the extreme to fall the other ways as children’s focus would be exclusively on
scientific views of the world. Schools can still be religious as long as it is taught in moderation.
In fact, having religious schools can allow children to gain a more rounded outlook as they will
learn both scientific and religious theories, which will ultimately help them better understand
the views of those around them. Dawkins highlights the risk that comes with Christianity having
a place in education as “from their earliest years unquestioning faith is a virtue.” For Dawkins,
there is no need to teach children to be sceptic and teach them of a God there is no evidence for
when living in a scientific age. On the other hand, it is arguable that it can be equally as harmful
to teach children to never question science and believe everything they are told, especially
because modern technology etc is so new that findings may change in the future. Moreover,
Dawkins is guilty of using only extreme examples to demonstrate his point. In extreme
communities, like the fundamentalists, there may be an issue of children not being taught
science. However, the majority of Christian schools still have dedicated science teachers,
pupils leave with GCSEs in science etc. Teaching Christianity and teaching science can exist
together in education.
One may argue that by having Christian schools, children are raised in a way that will cause
them to be intolerant of others in later life. This is because they will not have been exposed to as
much diversity growing up. Yet this argument unreasonably assumes that diversity can only
