Quote Originally Posted by leo9 View Post
If you mean exposure to a wide variety, I don't see evidence for this. For example, most of today's British Muslims have, whether they wanted it or not, been exposed to calculatedly multi-cutural religious studies from primary school. The result, in many cases, seems to have been to make them much more devout believers than their parents for whom Islam was just the way things were.
I'm not sure of the schooling available in Britain, so I don't know what kind of in-depth studies they have available for younger students. Here in the US there are virtually none. Any religious instructions, outside of religious schools themselves are invariably Christian, and illegal. As lucy pointed out, this kind of teaching would tend to alienate rather than educate non-Christians, making them cling more tightly to their religion.

I'm not clear if you mean seminary school or college in general?
I mean seminary school.

Obviously, in the crude sense that you can't treat science and any creation myth as co-existing descriptions of the material world. But religions have been coping with that ever since people discovered that there weren't really any gods at the top of Mount Olympus.
Yes, generally by denying the science for as long as they can, then, when forced to accept it, giving gods credit for it anyway.
Quantum mechanics and relativistic physics are not compatible as descriptions of the world, but very few scientists conclude that one of them must be false; they just accept that each description is true (or, to be strictly accurate, "the best working description of reality we have so far") in its proper context.
The key point here is, "proper context". Quantum mechanics applies primarily to sub-microscopic matter while relativity is more properly applied to larger structures and forces. Just as Newtonian physics is perfectly adequate to describe most non-relativistic motions, while breaking down at relativistic speeds. Each in their proper context will provide a testable, predictable description of the universe. Religion, on the other hand, is neither testable or predictable, and does not provide even an approximation of the real world.

At the time, it had more to do with keeping people from finding how much there was in it about exalting the poor, and putting God's laws before the state's, and everyone being equal in the sight of God, and subversive stuff like that.
Precisely. Too much knowledge is, in the view of religion, a bad thing! When people learn that their Church is not following the very book which it claims to be based upon, people will be upset.

It led to massive social upheavals led by fanatical believers who had read the book from cover to cover, and only lost faith in the established Church and State.
And they established their own religions, which were equally inadequate in explaining the real world, and which diverged just as badly from the Bible over time.

History doesn't bear you out. In the golden age of Islam, Muslims were far better educated than Europeans, but their faith was no weaker.
I believe you will find that the golden age you speak of began dying out after Muhammad and the advent of Islam, not gaining strength from it. Indeed, the case might be made that Islam is responsible for the decline of the Arab world, rather than its savior.

for a thousand years Europe's Jews were the most highly educated people, but didn't lose their faith in consequence.
For that same thousand years the Jews were the most persecuted people in Europe, and elsewhere. That tends to drive people back to their faith, not away from it.

There are countless examples of people who have improved themselves because they believed that they had God's help.
And more examples of people who have improved themselves without submitting to superstition. But having faith in God's help is not the same as following a specific religion. Faith can help support people, certainly. And if they want to put that faith in an imaginary friend instead of in themselves, more power to them.
Your insistence on seeing all forms of religion as slightly different versions of your birth faith constantly misleads you.
I try not to do this, but I freely admit that I am far more familiar with Roman Catholicism than any other religions.

Unless we're talking about creationists, or the religious opponents of sex education, this is a straw man. My children, and everyone else's, learn science.
Our children will only continue to learn science as long as we can keep the religions out of the schools. See Texas for how well that's working. Or look at some of the anti-science crap coming from the newly elected Congress.

Whether they also learn religion is a separate issue.
Personally, I think it's wrong to teach children religious dogma, since at their age such teaching is tantamount to brainwashing. Unless, of course, you are willing to teach them about ALL religions, and about the history of religions. Good luck getting that past the churches, though.