• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Teaching Atheism & Critical Thinking In RE

M

Mighty_Emperor

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
19,407
Well I think the ideas put forward by this thinktank are excellent ones:

Non-religious RE lessons idea

Religious education - compulsory in English schools - should include discussion of non-religious beliefs, a think tank report suggests.

The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) said students needed to acquire skills to discuss ethical dilemmas.

Religious education (RE) is not part of the national curriculum but by law all schools have to provide it.

Only now is the QCA curriculum regulator drawing up a national framework for teaching RE.

Weekly attendance

An IPPR report coming out on Monday says RE should be widened to include non-religious belief systems such as atheism, agnosticism and humanism.

It should encourage the study of philosophical and ethical problems and teach young people to evaluate evidence and argument.

Even the name should go, to be replaced by something like "religious, philosophical and moral education". In Scotland, for example, it is "religious and moral education".

IPPR senior research fellow Ben Rogers said: "Now that only seven per cent of Britons attend a weekly religious service, many are arguing for the abolition of RE as a compulsory subject - we disagree.

"RE has an important place in the curriculum - but only if it's brought up to date."

'Bias'

It was important that people learned to converse with those of different faiths and think critically about their own.

"Dropping religion from the syllabus, or banning the expression of religious beliefs from schools, as in France, won't make religious strife go away - if anything it will exacerbate it.

"Religious education can play an important part in combating prejudices."

But too often it had "a pro-religious and in some cases anti-science bias".

The IPPR said there were almost as many RE syllabuses in England as there were education authorities, with each opting to draw up their own.

The QCA plans to consult widely on the content of the new framework.

"IPPR believes it is vital that not just teachers and faith groups, but children, parents and the wider teaching community are consulted and involved."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/education/3486537.stm

Published: 2004/02/15 00:11:18 GMT

© BBC MMIV
Click to expand...

I feel that as well as teaching basic skills like the 3 Rs that some kind of lessons in assessing information, sources, etc. and coming to your own conclusions is vital. I' also like to see the idea sneaked into science teaching as well (something that came up in another thread) as a lot of that is instilled in some course at University but that means an awful lot of people miss out when it should be one of the core skills.

Emps
 
I agree it is a sterling idea to broaden the base to encompass Humanism, Atheisim, a hefty dose of Existentialism...What bothers me is that the 'Critical Reasoning' courses being peddled at the moment have a definite Scientistic slant - not so much about conceptual clarity as building a 'rationalist' worldview.

I like the idea of a return to a Renaissance education system - the 'R's together with logic, rhetoric and swordmanship - but I don't think it'll work that way.

I mean, perish the thought they should try to teach real philosophy....
 
I like the idea of a return to a Renaissance education system - the 'R's together with logic, rhetoric and swordmanship - but I don't think it'll work that way.
Click to expand...
An excellent proposal. You should be Minister of Education.

Religion (theology at least) should really be a part of all the subjects taught in school. They all have theological aspects, IMO.

I'd actually merge all the themes in school. Bring the lessons much closer together. And scrap Geography altogether - dividing it up between other subjects.

We learned Latin at school. What they did (which was clever) was to link the subjects. So we learned Roman history and tradition in the Latin class. And we learned Anglo - French history in the french class.

You could extend that idea. Why not teach Chemistry in German, for example? This way people would get far more out of their time.
 
Actually sounds like you went to an excellant school, Alb.

I don't know what RE is like now, but in the early eighties it was a token gesture - a mixed bag of 'did-you-knows' about the major world religions 'til GCSE level, when it became a weekly heart-search on 'contempory social issues'.

A revitalisation is long overdue, I think - but the saddness lies in the virtual impossibility of avoiding a heavy bias in some direction. Doltishness & mediocritiy follow, curtain falls.

I would seriously advocate good, hard media studies to prepare kids for the tabloid jungle awaiting them. A GCSE in posing the impertinent question :)
 
There's a problem with this idea. The obvious illustration of that problem is the example of the way evolution is taught in US schools (and poss. in many UK ones too, people all being fallible): very patchily, and all too often negatively.

Which is to say, those teaching it often don't understand it themselves, don't believe in it, and thus are unable to do other than misrepresent it to their students. Even when they are honestly trying to 'explain it properly'.

And that doesn't even begin to consider the distortions that occur when teachers are actively hostile towards the theory because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs...

So if atheism, humanism and so on are required to be taught in schools, believe me, the same sort of distortion and misrepresentation will inevitably occur. And how is that going to foster 'understanding'?
 
Well I think here in America the seperation on religion in schools is a bit ridiculous. How can you understand history without teaching at least a small amount of religion. To understand motivations and teachings of those institutions. I think philosophy would be a wonderful addition to the required curriculum.
 
That is a good point - I can recall a Literature lecturer at university impressing upon his students the importance of being conversant with the Bible if you want to develop a deep appreciation of Medieval and pre-20th century literature (of course, in the same breath he also promoted Homer). Actually, holds true of a lot of modern lit, too.

Question is how to promote a sensitive appreciation over sectarianism (religious or not).
 
A strong background in the classics is a must. I personally have had some Latin and would like to take more. I have been looking into schools that offer latin, as of now I have only found one and in no way can I afford it. I have a friend that has offered to tutor my daughter. There is a small private school here that does a traditional classical teaching. I am also considering homeschooling. I want my daughter to be an original thinker.
 
I couldn't agree more - go for breadth & depth. Latin opens up so much - not least fo all making acquiring the modern Romance languages a cinch.

I took a little Latin at school too and would love to take it up again. If nothing else, it flys in the face of dreary, lumpen utilitarian notions of education.

Why study Latin? Because it is superb. End of story - negato argumentium ;)
 
I have gone back to school as an adult and I tell you I have to study longer but in most ways things come easier for me now because I don't have the distractions. I did an independent study of Latin over the summer it was a lot of info to cram into such a short space of time. The great thing about Latin is it is very specific. I would also like to take Greek. A friend of mine did two semesters and really liked it. I have been majoring in history but may take on a minor in classics. I love mythology. Part of my Latin we translated a myth from the latin to english which was nice to see how each of interpreted things differently.
 
Though an Atheist I for one am in favour of RE (did very well at it the few times I bothered going to school) but they are quite right, it should encompass unbelievers and philosophers and all that.

My millitant pagan friend was very angry when she found her local school was not teaching kids about wicca, she had a word with the Headmistress who helpfully explained that they couldnt cover `everything` and that she shouldnt be making her brat different.

I said that maybe they should teach about major pagan religions like Voodoo, Bonpo and Shinto. she said that she was not any of those.

(dare I say that being a true tolerant person she was against the teaching of voodoo, despite it being a major faith in its area, with many millions of followers??)

And the Classics! Whoo!

(Do I see a minority faith quote before me??)
 
Commissioning Editors as we speak will be looking to add extra chapters
to their dismal RE course books. As well as meeting Colin the Christian, Imran the
Muslim and Jacob the Jew we will get to share a day in the life of Anthony the
Atheist.

"Anthony is an Atheist. That means he doesn't have a God. Roger is Anthony's
dog and he doesn't have a God either.

On Sundays, instead of visiting his Loving Father's House, Anthony visits his dad and
washes his car. Then he gorges his fat belly on pork and tells his dad to fuck off.

'Two lousy quid for all that work! How's that going to support my crack habit?'

In the afternoon, his chums Aggie and Ashley have come to share some smutty talk and
shamelessly compare their secret places. Sometimes they like to go out stealing but
today, Aggie has brought a book full of lies which they decide to study.

In the evenings, Anthony likes to play with ugly little parts of his body which he still has.

At night, he gets down on his knees and . . . "


Thank you, Sister Josephine, that's quite enough! Next!

:eek:
 
Washes his car! <shudders> That will give Atheism a bad name!

I NEVER wash my car, if it gets dirty I will take it down the road to the old bloke who will pressure wash it for a fiver.

(Of course after hes done the engine compartment, it wont start.)
 
James Whitehead said:
...we will get to share a day in the life of Anthony the
Atheist.

"Anthony is an Atheist. That means he doesn't have a God. Roger is Anthony's
dog and he doesn't have a God either.

...In the afternoon, his chums Aggie and Ashley have come to share some smutty talk and
shamelessly compare their secret places. Sometimes they like to go out stealing but
today, Aggie has brought a book full of lies which they decide to study...
Click to expand...
In many instances, probably sadly close to the truth of what would be taught if this 'teach them about atheism' idea goes through. There appears to be an assumption on the part of some believers that being 'without God' is equivalent to being 'without morals, ethics and/or character'; "take away the threat of divine punishment and people will inevitably behave like animals" in other words. Teaching 'atheism' in RE will inevitably lead to such ill-considered 'opinions' becoming even more widely-disseminated than they are now. Sure, there would be the odd RE class where atheism might be accurately represented, but the effects of such classes would be far outweighed by those in which it would not. Believe it. :hmph:

At the very least, we'll end up with even more idiots who believe 'atheism' is nothing more than an irrational knee-jerk reaction to a few 'unfortunate experiences' with religion, religious people and/or religious institutions.

:headbutt:

--------------------------------------------------
"Anthony's family all believe in their Heavenly Father, and pray daily for Him to view the boy's youthful (i.e. 'immature') 'teenage rebellion' indulgently, and to recognize that it is really just an adolescent stand against them, rather than against Him..."
--------------------------------------------------

:rolleyes:
 
yes, I cannot remember much about my RE classes, but I was taught that the functions of Jews was to take part in the holocaust.

What about the many small groups of Jews who have never been persecuted, how `do` they manage??

(to be fair that was the teachers words, not the curriucula book which I think was a little more factual and reasonable....but then the book never had to deal with New agers either...)

Why not have a book where each section is written by a scholar of the relevant faith? But that wont stop teachers teaching what they like
 
Homo Aves said:
Why not have a book where each section is written by a scholar of the relevant faith? But that wont stop teachers teaching what they like
Click to expand...

Sounds like an excellent idea!:)

I'm not sure how you cn teach about atheism as such - Humanism as a philosophy is possible, but atheism isn't a single possition.

I think the biggest problem we have is vague agnosticism (as opposed to "Fortean" sceptical agnosticism) - there are a lot of people who just haven't developed any philosphical position at all.

I have to say I didn't become religious as such until my early 20's (I'm a Methodist). I think religion in school was rather a turn off. Assemblies at Secondary School were normaly "A hymn, a prayer and a row" - we sang "Lord of all Hopefulness" until I developed a permenarnt aversion to it, then listened to the headmaster complaining about graffiti in the boys' toilets.:sob:

We had a new headmaster towards the end of my time who was Jewish - but still did Christian prayers (he didn't have to as we were a comprehensive - very strange).
 
Lots of interesting stuff in here.

My own experience of RE was largely listneing to my bigoted teacher rant about muslims and homosexuals. It would be nice to see it broadened, although the skills that would come from that broadening are already required for subjects such as history and English Lit. It would do no harm to have more subjects that require critical and independent thought though, and it would be nice to see more of that kind of thought encouraged in other subjects such as science, rather than blind teaching of facts.

I was taught Latin twice in my school career. The first time I loved it because it was all tied up with Roman history. The second time it bored me to death because all we did was memorise verbs. I really like the idea of cross-pollinating subjects more.

As for bias from teachers, that's inevitable, teacher's are human. The key I think is to have students who understand that their teachers are people with points of view - they may have knowledge to impart but they're not flawless repositories of truth. To encourage students to think for themselves in other words.

And since this thread is kinda about education, what do people think about the new proposals for education in the UK? I think I'm very encouraged by them, although I need to investigate exactly what is being proposed in a little more depth.

gl5210, is teaching about religion *completely* banned in US schools, even when its being taught as part of history rather than something that students should believe in? If so that certainly would make it very difficult to teach history properly.
 
Well not completely banned but the detailed themes are not taught and any time religion or God are mentioned someone sues. For a long time Am-history was taught as if all people who came to America were puritans or pilgrims looking for religous freedom which is not true either. That was a small percentage of settlers. I will say most school systems don't teach enough history. It is the whole seperation of church and state thing, if a school that is run and funded by the state teaches religion it is endorsing religion. Assinine line of thinking. I am sure that there are teachers who would push their own agenda but isn't that true of any subject. People who attend religous, parochial or private schools get more religion. I went to a Christian High School my last two years and was required to take Bible class, not religion. What I have learned about other religions is self taught which is sad. And the Bible lessons were so skewed to fundamentalist thinking. I have been out of the school system for many years and there have been many improvements. Most of us have to wait to go tothe University to take many of the classes that have are more diverse.
 
Shuggaroth said:
gl5210, is teaching about religion *completely* banned in US schools, even when its being taught as part of history rather than something that students should believe in? If so that certainly would make it very difficult to teach history properly.
Click to expand...

Though it wasn't addressed to me, I'll take a shot. I would guess that for the vast majority of public (government) school students in the US, "the Pilgrims left England because of religious persuction" is the sum total of knowledge they get about religion in school. Public schools are ideally very much of a locally control institution, so in theory one could get a lot or no, lousy or good, religious education depending on the type of community one lived in. In practice, I'd imagine that *any* attempt to institute an R.E. class, no matter how broad and well designed, would die in a firestorm of criticism and lawsuits (from every group you could think of).

OTOH, most of the excellent schools in the country are religiously affiliated private ones (R.C., Episcopalian, Lutheran), though in many cases the affiliation is tenuous at best ie chapel required once a week. [I should hasten to add that their status as better schools has nothing to do with being religious, merely that unlike government schools they can choose who they want to attend]. In any case, these places usually require at least one year of R.E., and unless it's an extremely dogmatic school, the classes come closer to education than indoctrination.

The above, of course, shouldn't be taken as gospel <giggle>

Question back to my UK friends. At what age is R.E. required? For how many years? Until what age? Does it differ depending on if the youth are on a Uni track education?
 
Dunno what the situation is these days, and it very probably varies north and south of the Scottish/English border (seperate education systems to go with our seperate legal systems) anyway, but in my day -the 1970s; '75 through to '79- RE was, like PE (gym), utterly compulsory at our local comprehensives, but while you could get off of PE with a note from home, RE was something else again... :hmph:
 
lopaka said:
Question back to my UK friends. At what age is R.E. required? For how many years? Until what age? Does it differ depending on if the youth are on a Uni track education?
Click to expand...

IO seem to remeber RE being compulsory all through primary Shcool (Ages 5 to 11) and at Secondary level up to about 4th Year ("Year 10" age 14/15?). There was meant to be a religious service every day, this happened a my Primary School but could only be managed once a week at the Comprehensive I went to because there wasn't a hall big enough for the whole school.

Shuggaroth said:
My own experience of RE was largely listneing to my bigoted teacher rant about muslims and homosexuals.
Click to expand...

I remeber my General Studies teacher having a "thing" against homosexuals. She had a bad experience with Lesbians at the first school she taught at (she told us a bit about it). She had very old fashioned ideas (all gay men are effeminate etc) and some ideas about circumstances when it "didn't count " which were rather disturbing:eek!!!!:

Other teachers told us that homosexualitycouldn't be dicussed in school at all due to the lovely michael Howard's Clause 28.:mad:
 
Something about Humanism that I never understood was its reluctance to accept the paranormal. Humanists often say there is nothing that science cannot explain, but to me that's as bad as the church in the 14th (?) century saying "the centre of the universe is the earth and that's it". There must be things that are yet to be discovered, and as such are "natural" but not "normal" and not covered by conventional science. Which is why a healthy dose of Forteanism is good for everyone.

Apart from that, it seems a pretty sound way of thought. I guess I am a Fortean Humanist :)
 
taras said:
Something about Humanism that I never understood was its reluctance to accept the paranormal. Humanists often say there is nothing that science cannot explain, but to me that's as bad as the church in the 14th (?) century saying "the centre of the universe is the earth and that's it". There must be things that are yet to be discovered, and as such are "natural" but not "normal" and not covered by conventional science. Which is why a healthy dose of Forteanism is good for everyone.

Apart from that, it seems a pretty sound way of thought. I guess I am a Fortean Humanist :)
Click to expand...

Yes, science doesn't always have answers. look at all the things we have to take for granted simply because science even today is unable to provide the answers for them. run one or two of those past a humanist and ask for a scientific explanation. Quite a lot of what we know is on good faith. Think about that next time you're in an aeroplane;)

The world needs the unexplained and in truth it will always have it. we live in fear of science making the world a smaller place, but that's sort of what science does, shrinks things down to bitesize chunks of understanding.

I've just thought of an example from star wars. Remember how pants it was in "phantom menace" when they gave a scientific explanation for "the force"? The force had so much more power when it was just some mysterious but quite simple thing.

I hate the phantom menace.
 
Ive never got on with the Scientific Humanists, nor any other atheist group for that matter. They are just too `culty` for my likes.

Remember Carl Sagan and his not too stellar (but still worth a look) novel `Contact` Do you think there was secret yearnings for religion there??
 
I work in a school and the RE lessons are as follows (this is just a brief outline of what goes on in my school):

Harvest Festival: the Christian and Pagan aspects. Why there is a harvest festival, what it represented and so forth, what people did to celebrate not only within the church but elsewhere.

Hallowe'en: The Pagan side. All Souls Day and why bonfires where lit etc.

Diwali and Sihkism: The foundation of the religion, who Guru Nanak was, the 5 Ks and what Diwali is about.

Poppy/Rememberance Day: Significance of Poppies and what they represent. Why we do it. The armistice.

Christmas: Christian and non-christian aspects. You'd be floored about just how many kids don't have a clue that Jesus and Christmas are connected, this is not through being agnostic, or atheists, just bloody ignornant.

Chinese New Year: What each animal represents, why they were chosen, what your characteristics are like if you're born in that year.

Easter: Christian and Pagan. Again Jesus and Easter have little or no connection. Rebirth.

Maypoles: Pagan. Why people danced, what is represented.

Muslim: Ramadam, the Koran, Mohommed.

I could go on. RE is there to teach understanding and tollerance. Not indoctrination by bible thumping hacks that the Bible is right and evolution and Darwin is wrong.

Most children will blatantly say "I don't believe in God" but have no substance to back up this argument except they've not had any religious infulence (any sort, Christian, Muslim, Wiccan to name a few) within their lives.

Some schools do not have specialised RE teachers teaching it. It usually falls within the citizenship or history faculities within the school. These days RE should be called something else because blindly, people read the worlds "Religious Education" and equate it with zealot and fanatic and think it's all about Adam and Eve.

So, before we all go banging on about how great it is to teach children open thinking, which, yes it is, lets see if we can actually get them to open their minds first, which sadly is the one problem most schools face.

RE these days should not have anything to do with homosexuality (PSHE) and theology (only if taken as a GCSE). Although, sadly some schools still teach it like that. But it depends on the class teacher. Most teachers teach with their own opinions interwoven, if you didn't you'd be a robot. It should be taught focusing on acceptance, understanding and citizenship, which in today's multicultural society is what we need.
 
Sounds like a good curriculum Tyger Lily.

"RE" replaced "RI" (Religious Instruction) at some point before I started school in the same way that "PT" (Physical Training) was replaced by "PE" (Physical Education). I think RE seems a reasonable label for the subject. If children don't know the basics of Christianity it is going to become impossible for them to understand much of European literature and history.
 
Or maybe call it the history of religions. Still someone in the states would sue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top