Different people can have different experiences of the same thing. That doesn't make it a different thing. Some people hate cilantro, some people like it, but it's still cilantro. — Reformed Nihilist

Just a joke on the side. When my (American) wife came to England she couldn't find cilantro in the shops. She asked me, why don't you guys have cilantro? As it happens, we do, but we call it coriander. And it's 'the same thing' :)

I judged the idea based on its inspiration , not its "source". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It's still fallacious. It does not logically follow that the idea is bad because it's inspiration is somehow flawed.

If there is a political struggle, like with sex education, then no matter what curriculum we end up with it has the baggage of the agenda of various political interests.

A "save them from indoctrination" education is not about the well-being of students. It is powerful elites using students as pawns in a political battle.

I don't care what age the instruction starts at, the material should be designed to help develop a critical perspective that can be used for a lifelong process of self-education and creatively contributing to society.

Creating lifelong narcissists whose modus operandi is being McCarthyists paranoid about indoctrination is not a good idea. Giving people the power to be effective responsible, autonomous self-educators and independent thinkers is. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I agree with most of this, so I find it strange that you are so resistant to the idea that we teach children about religions without value judgements. No indoctrination for or against any religion. Of course we should also teach critical thinking, but that is a separate concern. We should teach critical thinking not specifically as it applies to religions, but as it applies to everything. From your responses, I feel like you think I have a secret agenda to teach children that religion is bad, and my suggestion is just a Trojan horse. That's totally implausible though, as a majority of teachers, assuming they fall into the broader demographic pattern, are religious. Perhaps you could take the suggestion at face value. It really seems like an unusually reasonable and uncontroversial notion to be getting such push back.

I think it's a genuine question how much of especially pre-high-school teaching can be done without saying "we". I don't think of spelling as repressive, teaching it as indoctrination. Fact is, though, we have teachers tell students, this is how we spell "apple", this is how we add numbers, this is what we mean by a fact or an opinion. If "we" suddenly disappears when you get to religion, what does its absence convey?

In a geology section of an elementary school science course, we don't teach kids that rocks are good or bad, we teach them they are igneous or sedimentary et al, and what properties those designations have. Why can't we do the same?

I also don't understand what you're referring to by "we" in this context. In the average school I imagine that the children come from families of various different religions, or at least difderent sects. So the only "we" there needs to be is the "we" that is learning about various different religions.

It's still fallacious. It does not logically follow that the idea is bad because it's inspiration is somehow flawed. — Reformed Nihilist

Remember what Kenneth R. Miller shows is the real agenda of the Intelligent Design movement? If they get their way the impact won't just be students being exposed to a controversial worldview. The impact will be that students will be turned into pawns in a battle that has nothing to do with their well-being, and their lives during and after school will be weighed down with that baggage.

It is no different if it is Daniel Dennett calling for "facts" to be taught. The spirit of the policy matters, not just the letter.

I agree with most of this, so I find it strange that you are so resistant to the idea that we teach children about religions without value judgements. No indoctrination for or against any religion. Of course we should also teach critical thinking, but that is a separate concern. We should teach critical thinking not specifically as it applies to religions, but as it applies to everything. From your responses, I feel like you think I have a secret agenda to teach children that religion is bad, and my suggestion is just a Trojan horse. That's totally implausible though, as a majority of teachers, assuming they fall into the broader demographic pattern, are religious. Perhaps you could take the suggestion at face value. It really seems like an unusually reasonable and uncontroversial notion to be getting such push back. — Reformed Nihilist

See above.

So let's say that this is my idea, not his. I can assure you that the spirit by which I propose it is sincere. Now can we talk about it like rational people and not ideologues?

Edit: The agenda of ID proponents is not the problem, it is that they are suggesting teaching something either outright false, or misleading to a degree that encourages outright false beliefs. I am suggesting teaching kids actual facts about religions.

So let's say that this is my idea, not his. I can assure you that the spirit by which I propose it is sincere. Now can we talk about it like rational people and not ideologues?... — Reformed Nihilist

What ideology have I espoused in this discussion?

Edit: The agenda of ID proponents is not the problem, it is that they are suggesting teaching something either outright false, or misleading to a degree that encourages outright false beliefs. I am suggesting teaching kids actual facts about religions. — Reformed Nihilist

Like I have been saying for many years, if kids accept as true everything that teachers tell them then the actual content presented is the least of our problems.

The same applies to any source that claims to be presenting truths, such as the mainstream news. The same applies to adults.

But I have already said on several occasions that the solution is to present material as what it really is: what people think.

Anybody who thinks he is merely presenting "facts" may not be as deceiving as ID proponents, but he/she is playing the same game as them.

Tell kids what people think. Make it clear that it is what people think. "This neuroscientist defines religion as...". "This ethnographer recorded in her field notes this thought about all religions after being a participant-observer in that group's religious ritual." Etc. Then ask the kids, "What do you think?". Then ask them to present their thoughts in an essay. Encourage them to interview religious leaders in the community for extra credit. Have them do a project. Break them up into groups. Assign each group a different religious tradition. Have them then research that religious tradition and then role play its believers/followers, the way that they understand them, in front of the class. Put kids in charge of their intellectual lives like they should be. Don't make them sponges absorbing facts from an authority figure and regurgitating them onto a test so that adults paranoid about people's "beliefs" can be temporarily appeased.

What ideology have I espoused in this discussion? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The anti-Dennett ideology. You seem to be focused on taking sides, and you seem to have pre-concluded that his side is the wrong one, regardless of what is actually said or proposed. That is behaving like an ideologue.

Regarding the rest, I'll ask the question simply once more. Do you object to teaching kids what various different religions believe in first grade? Just things like the difference between monotheism and polytheism, and that the Judeo-Christian religions are monotheistic and hinduism is polytheistic. That there were other religions in the past that mostly people don't believe any more? I accept that you would like to see more done. I am asking if you can agree that at the very least we should at least teach the facts of what people believe?

Here's an example that has real-world consequences:
In Pew Research Center polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 57% to 35%.

Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown. And today, support for same-sex marriage is at its highest point since Pew Research Center began polling on this issue. Based on polling in 2017, a majority of Americans (62%) support same-sex marriage, while 32% oppose it.
http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
Changing beliefs don't directly cause the laws to change, but it's hard to imagine the latter happening without the former. What's more, you have to assume the aggregate shift represents either many individuals changing their minds or generational replacement, but that leaves unaddressed why younger people would have different views than older people.

But I can see you have a more teleological or even eschatological view of things than I do. I still can't help but think what people think matters. — Srap Tasmaner

What "belief" that evidentialism says must be epistemically justified caused people to respond one way or the other?

The belief that homosexuality is / is not a sin? The belief that marriage has / has not always been defined as one man and one woman? The belief that homosexuality is / is not a genetic trait?

The poll tells us what people support or oppose, not what they believe. It may just be "anecdotal evidence", but it is not uncommon to hear about people changing their attitude after a child, sibling, friend, etc. comes out. Their changed emotional stakes, not their changed cognitive beliefs, explains their stance, a case could be made.

People may not even have a belief that can be isolated and attributed to their attitude. People may not even know what to rationally believe--they could be confused (the marriage equality debate always confused me, and still does; how is it "equal protection under the law" when a person like me, single and living alone, doesn't get any of the benefits/protections from the government that couples do?). People could be defaulting to their intuition to form a stance on an issue while doubting all of the beliefs being presented from every side.

The anti-Dennett ideology. You seem to be focused on taking sides, and you seem to have pre-concluded that his side is the wrong one, regardless of what is actually said or proposed. That is behaving like an ideologue... — Reformed Nihilist

I have said all along that all of them--Dennett; the ID movement; the Sexual Revolution sex-positivism disciples who want to advance their agenda under the guise of "comprehensive sex education"; the cultural conservatives who want to advance their agenda under the guise of "abstinence-only" sex education--should keep their "sides" out of public education.

If there is any "side" that I have shown I am on, it is the side of the intellectual autonomy of kids.

Again, if I could have my way the policies in force would make none of the ideologues on any side happy.

Regarding the rest, I'll ask the question simply once more. Do you object to teaching kids what various different religions believe in first grade? Just things like the difference between monotheism and polytheism, and that the Judeo-Christian religions are monotheistic and hinduism is polytheistic. That there were other religions in the past that mostly people don't believe any more? I accept that you would like to see more done. I am asking if you can agree that at the very least we should at least teach the facts of what people believe? — Reformed Nihilist

I would have to see the material, lesson plans, etc.

I wasn't taught about classical or contemporary world cultures / civilizations until the 6th grade, so I can't imagine how you would effectively extensively teach 1st graders something as complex as the world's various religious traditions.

On the other hand, I'm sure I could right now go to the children's section at a public library and find a book for small children about the variety of religions. Anybody who is concerned about religion-illiteracy in society and thinks it is important to reach people when they are small children might want to consider children's books as a tool--it would probably involve a lot less of a fight from and get more reception from parents, administrators and lawmakers who have a zillion other, much bigger, priorities like addressing the "STEM shortage" and churning out the next Albert Einstein or Steve Jobs

I wouldn't be surprised if that aforementioned book is already right there in a school library waiting for a child to check it out.

It feels as though no matter how reasonable a proposal I ofder, you are dead set against saying "Yes. That's a reasonable proposal". So I'm asking If, in principle, you can agree with my proposal? I'm not asking if there are other things that can be done. I'm not asking about the detailed implementation. I'm asking if you see a problem with the idea in principle.

I'm asking if you see a problem with the idea in principle. — Reformed Nihilist

I am a champion of the liberal arts tradition, so, no, I don't have a problem with it.

What I said about what I wasn't taught until the 6th grade didn't sound good. But then I thought about it and remembered that in 4th grade we studied state history, 5th grade we studied U.S. history, and then 6th grade we studied classical civilization and contemporary world civilizations. That sounds better.

I only have one year of an education degree from 30 years ago, so my knowledge of pedagogy is both outdated and limited, but a Google search seems to indicate that first grade social studies focuses on the basic concepts of civics and geography. I don't see why concepts like monotheism, polytheism and atheism wouldn't fit the same developmental level.

it is not uncommon to hear about people changing their attitude after a child, sibling, friend, etc. comes out. Their changed emotional stakes, not their changed cognitive beliefs, explains their stance, a case could be made. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It just seems most natural to me to describe such cases as beliefs changing; what you described would be reasons for those new beliefs.

As an aside, by saying this I'm not really defending any particular view about human psychology-- and certainly not epistemology! This is just how belief talk works, and what we use it for. If I'm defending anything much, it's just the utility of folk psychology, not any theory.