What of non religious world view should make it into RE?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given that atheists on this forum are very cagey about saying what they actually believe but contradictorily want non religious world views taught in RE (indeed Gordon, for example has said he is just here to counter the religious) what is it about non religious world views that posters and predominantly atheist posters want to be taught in RE?

Fill your boots.

[Gordon]

Given that atheists on this forum are very cagey about saying what they actually believe but contradictorily want non religious world views taught in RE (indeed Gordon, for example has said he is just here to counter the religious) what is it about non religious world views that posters and predominantly atheist posters want to be taught in RE?

Fill your boots.

When did I say exactly that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When did I say exactly that?

Did you or did you not recently post that you were just here to point out the logical fallacies of believers? I highly suspect it was in response to a question as to atheists on here actually saying what they did believe in.

[Gordon]

Did you or did you not recently post that you were just here to point out the logical fallacies of believers? I highly suspect it was in response to a question as to atheists on here actually saying what they did believe in.

No, since in any event I post on different subjects.

What I did say (and that you are misrepresenting) was along the lines of that since the arguments offered by Christian theists to date are inherently fallacious in one way or another then all one can reasonable do is point out the fallacies to them, since in view of these their arguments (for want of a better term) fail before they even get off the ground.

Should, and however unlikely this is, a non-fallacious argument be advanced in support of theism then that would be a different matter - do you happen to have one handy?

[Hope]

When did I say exactly that?

Whilst you may or may not have made that exact comment, the question JA asks is worth addressing.  It might also be that since religions deal with moral and ethical issues, and atheism is also interested in those same issues - should the subject be renamed M & E - and a comprehensive overview of world views be covered.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whilst you may or may not have made that exact comment, the question JA asks is worth addressing.  It might also be that since religions deal with moral and ethical issues, and atheism is also interested in those same issues - should the subject be renamed M & E - and a comprehensive overview of world views be covered.

Indeed if holders of non religious world views want inclusion in RE they will have to be clear on what those are or hold their piece.

Once Secular humanism is on the curriculum I shall be consulting it on what the forum humanists and non religious believe rather than the so far hopeless task of trying to elicit an outline here.

[Hope]

I think the point is that, as we have often been told here, science doesn't deal in right and wrong (in a moral/ethical way) and that we therefore have to debate these issues outside of a scientific envelope.  I'd be quite happy to do away with the term 'RE', since the vast majority of that subject once you get beyond - say Year 7 or 8 in England and Wales (not sure of the Scottish and N. Irish terminology) - is all about morals and ethics.  Even primary school syllabuses include more M&E than they used to.


I mistyped Scottish in the bracketted section above as Sottish.  Was very tempted to leave in as that   

[Gordon]

Indeed if holders of non religious world views want inclusion in RE they will have to be clear on what those are or hold their piece.

Once Secular humanism is on the curriculum I shall be consulting it on what the forum humanists and non religious believe rather than the so far hopeless task of trying to elicit an outline here.

I suspect that abandoning the term 'RE' in favour of, say, the 'Philosophy of Morals & Ethics', or something similar wouldn't be be an issue at all. I see no reason why the terms 'religious', 'atheist' or 'humanist' need to be in the headline title.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect that abandoning the term 'RE' in favour of, say, the Philosophy of Morals & Ethics', or something similar wouldn't be be an issue at all. I see no reason why the terms 'religious', 'atheist' or 'humanist' need to be in the headline title.

But is what you are then suggesting is not saying what humanism or atheism or religion is.....which tends to suit a non religious world view surely. This is surely a reason why Lord Singh for example wanted the committees remit narrowed.

Given that religion, atheism and humanism would not be in the headline title. What of non-religion would you want to see in the curriculum?

[Gordon]

I think the point is that, as we have often been told here, science doesn't deal in right and wrong (in a moral/ethical way) and that we therefore have to debate these issues outside of a scientific envelope.

Which is why Biology, Physics and Chemistry are separate lessons from anything 'RE-like'. I've just asked my 14 year old grandson for the current term used in his secondary school (in Scotland), which is 'RMPS' (Religious, Moral & Philosophical Studies).   

[ProfessorDavey]

Given that atheists on this forum are very cagey about saying what they actually believe but contradictorily want non religious world views taught in RE (indeed Gordon, for example has said he is just here to counter the religious) what is it about non religious world views that posters and predominantly atheist posters want to be taught in RE?

Fill your boots.

While you continue to call it RE then it seems somewhat difficult to have a broad and balanced curriculum. In my kid's school many study Philosophy and Ethics, which actually (to my view) remains too dominated by religion, but the name is clearly more balanced.

So in a more balanced subject I'd like to see firstly an understanding that there are people who are religious and those that are not, and that there are people who believe in god or gods and those that don't. Effectively to provide context that is relevant to the UK today and also the larger world.

From there there should be a focus on major moral philosophical approaches, both religious (understanding major religions) and non religious (e.g. humanism, non religious deontological approached - e.g. Kant, consequentialism including utilitarianism, virtue ethics etc). And perhaps the best way of addressing this is not through a dry analytical approach but through 'hard' moral issues case studies. So for example whether it can ever be correct to steal, obligations to future generations on the environment, abortion etc etc - you can think of loads of examples.

The key being for the students to understand and develop their own moral approaches, which will necessarily come from a starting point based on their own upbringing and culture. My experience of teaching ethics, albeit at postgraduate level, is that students typically have a rather sophisticated and 'hybrid' approach - i.e. very few align with a pure ideological moral philosophy, whether religious or non religious but rather combine different approaches in rather complex manners. Also few would ever describe themselves as humanist, although many adopt a very humanist approach, likewise consequentialist etc.

So there you go, that's what I'd do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

While you continue to call it RE then it seems somewhat difficult to have a broad and balanced curriculum. In my kid's school many study Philosophy and Ethics, which actually (to my view) remains too dominated by religion, but the name is clearly more balanced.

So in a more balanced subject I'd like to see firstly an understanding that there are people who are religious and those that are not, and that there are people who believe in god or gods and those that don't. Effectively to provide context that is relevant to the UK today and also the larger world.

From there there should be a focus on major moral philosophical approaches, both religious (understanding major religions) and non religious (e.g. humanism, non religious deontological approached - e.g. Kant, consequentialism including utilitarianism, virtue ethics etc). And perhaps the best way of addressing this is not through a dry analytical approach but through 'hard' moral issues case studies. So for example whether it can ever be correct to steal, obligations to future generations on the environment, abortion etc etc - you can think of loads of examples.

The key being for the students to understand and develop their own moral approaches, which will necessarily come from a starting point based on their own upbringing and culture. My experience of teaching ethics, albeit at postgraduate level, is that students typically have a rather sophisticated and 'hybrid' approach - i.e. very few align with a pure ideological moral philosophy, whether religious or non religious but rather combine different approaches in rather complex manners. Also few would ever describe themselves as humanist, although many adopt a very humanist approach, likewise consequentialist etc.

So there you go, that's what I'd do.

But keenly wanting to remove the word religion from schools and the study of it merely reinforces the idea that cultural imperialism and linguistic fascism is rife among the non religious, surely.

What of non religious world view do you want in the curriculum. I ask this as so far you are treating this question as an editing censorship task rather than inclusion. Do secular humanists really want to give that impression?

[SusanDoris]

Some years ago the BHA produced an RE curriculum. I read the basic outline, and would certainly have had a good look at it if I had been able to, but by then I could not.

[ProfessorDavey]

But keenly wanting to remove the word religion from schools and the study of it merely reinforces the idea that cultural imperialism and linguistic fascism is rife among the non religious, surely.

No it provides a balanced view, rather than one that implies that religious views are pre-eminent. So the focus is on moral philosophy, which of course includes religions which are very prominent examples of moral philosophical codes.

What of non religious world view do you want in the curriculum. I ask this as so far you are treating this question as an editing censorship task rather than inclusion. Do secular humanists really want to give that impression?

I've already answered this - did you not read the bit where I talked about humanism, non religious deontological approached - e.g. Kant, consequentialism including utilitarianism, virtue ethics etc. None of these are really included in current RE curricula - certainly not in any depth - so this is broadening and inclusive, adding study of philosophies that provide the bedrock of many people's moral outlook (even if those people may not recognise it as such).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it provides a balanced view, rather than one that implies that religious views are pre-eminent. So the focus is on moral philosophy,

Well replacing RE with moral philosophy still sounds like a bit of an editing job rather than an inclusion and doesn't do justice to educating pupils about the notion of world views. Everyone loses apart of course from those who want any notion of religion eradicated which would be a really dangerous development both Stalinist and culturally imperialistic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some years ago the BHA produced an RE curriculum. I read the basic outline, and would certainly have had a good look at it if I had been able to, but by then I could not.

Thanks for that. Do you know if they have an updated one?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Looking at the BHA website on RE they want and I quote: ''In practice, our work in RE focuses on ensuring non-religious perspectives are included (e.g. atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught, and Humanism taught about as a non-religious approach to life)'': Source BHA website.

So is what they are saying for example is that you might teach Christianity and then have to say but atheism says this and then teach Judaism and then have to say but Atheism says this? Where would the balance be there since atheism would be the predominant idea.

Or is it worse than that....everytime God is mentioned atheism must be mentioned?

Now I challenge anyone to say that sort of thing Isn't reminiscent of the lengths Stalinism went to.

[Stranger]

Looking at the BHA website on RE they want and I quote: ''In practice, our work in RE focuses on ensuring non-religious perspectives are included (e.g. atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught, and Humanism taught about as a non-religious approach to life)'': Source BHA website.

So is what they are saying for example is that you might teach Christianity and then have to say but atheism says this and then teach Judaism and then have to say but Atheism says this? Where would the balance be there since atheism would be the predominant idea.

Or is it worse than that....everytime God is mentioned atheism must be mentioned?

Now I challenge anyone to say that sort of thing Isn't reminiscent of the lengths Stalinism went to.

This is a blatantly dishonest distortion of what is being said. No wonder you didn't provide a link.

http://tinyurl.com/zlhxfrr

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is a blatantly dishonest distortion of what is being said. No wonder you didn't provide a link.

http://tinyurl.com/zlhxfrr

You blatantly ignored that I said what the source is.

I quoted the BHA from this page:

https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/schools-and-education/school-curriculum/religious-education/

I don't know what you are looking at.

[Stranger]

You blatantly ignored that I said what the source is.

I quoted the BHA from this page:

https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/schools-and-education/school-curriculum/religious-education/

I don't know what you are looking at.

I just shortened the url.

Your interpretation of what is said suggests you could do with refresher course in English comprehension (as well as logic).

[Maeght]

If it remains RE then atheism should just get a mention as being an alternative view. if it is broadened into philosophy and morals then humanism, secularism and antitheism should be covered but again athism should just be mentioned since all it is is a lack of belief in god or Gods. I would prefer the latter approach but if RE remains there should be some inclusion of general philosophy and the like elsewhere in the curriculum. Seems obvious really.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I just shortened the url.

Your interpretation of what is said suggests you could do with refresher course in English comprehension (as well as logic).

I am actually asking what this can possibly mean: ''atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,'' note the word ''when''. I am quite within my rights to ponder whether everything said about God must be immediately followed by what the atheist line is in such a scheme.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am actually asking what this can possibly mean: ''atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,'' note the word ''when''. I am quite within my rights to ponder whether everything said about God must be immediately followed by what the atheist line is in such a scheme.

No I think the point is that when talking about people who have a belief in god or gods it is important in the interests of balance to remind students that not all people believe in god and that a belief in god isn't somehow a requisite for having a moral philosophy. Thats the problems at the moment, with the current narrow RE curriculum in that it emphasises a view that the difference between people is the god they believe in, when of course many people (possible most of the students being taught) don't believe in god. And further that religion and morality are inextricably linked, perpetuating the myth that you can't be moral without belief in god and a religious belief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I think the point is that when talking about people who have a belief in god or gods it is important in the interests of balance to remind students that not all people believe in god and that a belief in god isn't somehow a requisite for having a moral philosophy. Thats the problems at the moment, with the current narrow RE curriculum in that it emphasises a view that the difference between people is the god they believe in, when of course many people (possible most of the students being taught) don't believe in god. And further that religion and morality are inextricably linked, perpetuating the myth that you can't be moral without belief in god and a religious belief.

......or the BHA statement is a drive for religion to be taught from an atheist perspective only which is highly Stalinist.

There is no more need in RE to hide that religious people derive there morality from religion, which would result from what you suggest, than there is to pretend atheists don't draw their morality from moral philosophy is there?

Why can't atheism occupy a place in the syllabus like Buddhism or Christianity so when themes are covered what atheism thinks about that theme are covered rather than it standing imperiously throughout the syllabus correcting other world views (which in any case is only the experience of an atheist)?

[Stranger]

I am actually asking what this can possibly mean: ''atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,'' note the word ''when''.

In the context of the page, it seems quite clear: as part of the same subject.

We want a subject on the curriculum which helps young people to form and explore their own beliefs and develop an understanding of the beliefs and values different from their own; enriches pupils’ knowledge of the religious and humanist heritage of humanity and so supports other subjects...

I am quite within my rights to ponder whether everything said about God must be immediately followed by what the atheist line is in such a scheme.

Yes, you are within your rights to put forward a ridiculous and extreme interpretation of what was being said and make yourself look like a complete idiot, if that is what you want...