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?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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).
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.
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?
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.You blatantly ignored that I said what the source is.
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.
I just shortened the url.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
In the context of the page, it seems quite clear: as part of the same subject.Remember it is not my fault if the BHA statement contains apparent contradictions
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...
Remember it is not my fault if the BHA statement contains apparent contradictions
You haven't satisfactorily explained this line from the BHA:
''atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,''.....nor how it squares with what you have outlined?
Like I said, you are free to make yourself look like an idiot, if you want.I can see you are embarrassed by this line from the BHA:
I can see you are embarrassed by this line from the BHA:
'' atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,''
Not at all. Do carry on.....Well I've given my interpretation and you have decried that as being too sinister......How do you interpret it? I mean interpret this: ''atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,'' rather than ignoring it and going on to another statement.
Well I've given my interpretation and you have decried that as being too sinister......How do you interpret it? I mean interpret this: ''atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,'' rather than ignoring it and going on to another statement.
......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)?
Do try to pay attention: #24.Evasion noted.
Evasion noted.
In the context of the page, it seems quite clear: as part of the same subject.didn't you understand?
......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)?
Atheism isn't a stand-alone faith position.I tend to disagree. Antitheism may not be a stand alone position.
What part ofdidn't you understand?Are you saying that every theistic view taught would not be countered there and then by the atheist view?
Atheism doesn't think about those themes. Individual atheist have their own views but there is no atheist philosophy. Therefor you present humanism, secularism etc but atheism's 'place' would be very small.Then do you agree that this statement from the BHA makes no sense
Are you saying that every theistic view taught would not be countered there and then by the atheist view?
Of course. Your attempt to yank one sentence out of a page and turn it into one of your straw men is extremely silly.You keep forgetting I didn't write it...and also it is possibly contradictory to the general thrust you are trying to portray (on what evidence you haven't made clear ).
Are you saying that every theistic view taught would not be countered there and then by the atheist view?
Might it not simply be the case, Vlad, that atheism and various forms of theism are part of the same syllabus and that aspects of each will be covered over the period of time it takes to complete the syllabus.We can but hope so Gordon. But then why not make that clear?
Again it could be interpreted as having to qualify every statement made in RE with the atheist point of view...
You could of course give an interpretation which is not so sinister or take the line that Maeght has taken...that atheism has very little to say.
I tend to disagree. Antitheism may not be a stand alone position.
When the BHA suggest it is taught then, what do they mean by it?
Do you subscribe to every theistic statement no matter from what religion it comes from be countered from the atheist perspective? Do you not see how that would make atheism the predominant idea?
We can but hope so Gordon. But then why not make that clear?
I used to be a school governor with responsibility for RE and as such I sat in on various lessons. Whenever a faith topic is taught the teacher has to say 'this is what some people believe about God; compare this with what some of you believe about God.' The predominant idea is that God exists and absence of belief is hinted at at best.No, I think you make a thoughtful point.
All this requires us the addition of 'and some people don't believe in God.' It's nothing for you to get frightened about unless you think the theist position can't stand up to that.
Perhaps they just assumed that theists who are sensitive or insecure wouldn't over-react at the mere mention of atheism in a syllabus: clearly they were wrong!I refer you to my other thread inspired by the exclusion of consideration of non religious world views from discussion in a cross party committee on RE.
There should be one straightforward rule about teaching ABOUT religions - Do not at any time tell any child that any god is true. A brief outline of how religious beliefs arose and have changed, i.e. the history of religious beliefs and how they are known today is important as is the equally important information that many people do not believe in any god.A fair and clear manifesto although I think you run into what you want to avoid in your last statement.
The bottom line should always be 'people have believed that there are gods. To tell a child that any god is true is to tell them a falsehood.
I refer you to my other thread inspired by the exclusion of consideration of non religious world views from discussion in a cross party committee on RE.
I am in two minds over that at the moment. One is why should non religion appear in RE, the other is that world views should be taught in RE. From my POV British humanism is not immune from cultural imperialism or politically engineering the elimination of religion in the same way that all majorities aren't.
I suspect you are over-thinking it, Vlad.Is that the aim? Then we are qualifying Religious education in the light of cultural secularism then................yes or no.
After all if the aim is to review theism in historical, philosophical, cultural, social, legal and political terms then since you'd have to note that not all theists ascribed to the same religion (noting the differences between religions) then why wouldn't you also note that some people were atheists?
No, I think you make a thoughtful point.
I can't see how that ''teaches atheism clearly'' though which is what the BHA seem to want when God is covered.
There should be one straightforward rule about teaching ABOUT religions - Do not at any time tell any child that any god is true. A brief outline of how religious beliefs arose and have changed, i.e. the history of religious beliefs and how they are known today is important as is the equally important information that many people do not believe in any god.
The bottom line should always be 'people have believed that there are gods. To tell a child that any god is true is to tell them a falsehood.
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?I believe in lots of things. As long as it's not about gods, what do you want to talk abouy ? Fill your boots
Fill your boots.
Then do you agree that this statement from the BHA makes no sense
..........''atheism taught about clearly when beliefs about god are being taught,''?
Is that the aim? Then we are qualifying Religious education in the light of cultural secularism then................yes or no.
But that's all atheism is - some people don't believe in God. That does teach it clearly.Not, if we see it in the contexts that Gordon outlined earlier on namely
Not really: take my grandson's situation, he is at secondary school here in Scotland where we know from a recent survey (that I noted in the 'decline continues' thread) which noted that the majority of people living in Scotland no longer identify themselves as having religious affiliation - so if we are educating our kids this situation clearly can't be ignored.A bit little scotlander IMO. How is wee Jocky going to know not to laugh at the man with the piece of cloth on his head or that Father Flynn is not merely motivated by the basest of motives?
Not, if we see it in the contexts that Gordon outlined earlier on namely
''in historical, philosophical, cultural, social, legal and political terms''.
A bit little scotlander IMO. How is wee Jocky going to know not to laugh at the man with the piece of cloth on his head or that Father Flynn is not merely motivated by the basest of motives?
Education, Vlad, and the example set by his family.
If you don't mind I'll ignore the rest of your post: I don't much care if you insult me but insulting my grandson (who is a caring and thoughtful lad in spite of being a teenager) does seem uncalled for.
I was actually referring to the little scotlander attitude and casting the offspring of an insular cultural Scottish apatheism in the collective roll of wee Jocky, Gordon............. not your grandson who I am sure is as you describe.
I seem to remember you said elsewhere you were born here in Scotland so I'm surprised to see you patronise us so.
My grandson will be here tomorrow before he goes to school, where as I said earlier they do 'RMPS' so I'll ask him for his comments on your earlier post ang let you know what he says.
Can one patronise oneself?.......I suppose if you're like me who will patronise any bugger the answer must be yes.
Am I to assume you have your finger on the pulse of culture in general, and state education in particular? If so, then I assume you must spend time here since, as I'm sure know, education here is fully devolved to Holyrood.I think you are suggesting that I am missing something. Are you saying that the Scottish humanists satisfied with the state of RE? If so then why aren't the BHA campaigning for similar across the UK?
So, do you spend much time here so as to be able to guage first hand the extent of the 'insular Scottish cultural apatheism' you mentioned?
I think you are suggesting that I am missing something. Are you saying that the Scottish humanists satisfied with the state of RE? If so then why aren't the BHA campaigning for similar across the UK?
I understood that RE was now 'Religion and Ethics' and that is the name of the GCSE. So I imagine religion and no religion are both covered.
I understood that RE was now 'Religion and Ethics' and that is the name of the GCSE. So I imagine religion and no religion are both covered.
I used to be a school governor with responsibility for RE and as such I sat in on various lessons. Whenever a faith topic is taught the teacher has to say 'this is what some people believe about God; compare this with what some of you believe about God.' The predominant idea is that God exists and absence of belief is hinted at at best.Indeed, clear and simple. It is important that children are not lead into thinking that the distinction is between people who believe this god, that god and the other god without it being clear that many people do not believe in any of those god and that doesn't make them somehow less moral as a consequence.
All this requires us the addition of 'and some people don't believe in God.' It's nothing for you to get frightened about unless you think the theist position can't stand up to that.
..., without it being clear that many people do not believe in any of those god and that doesn't make them somehow less moral as a consequence.The issue I have with this whole concept is just what the basis is for humanist moral thinking. It would appear not to be linked to an understanding of human life as having intrinsic value and purpose as there seems to be no grounds for a humanist understanding of purpose. Rather, humanism would seem to be based on situational thinking, so what might be seen as of value today might not be tomorrow.
So humanists are less moral than believers, Hope?Not necessarily; just wondering what their understandings are based on. However, if they are situational in their thinking, perhaps they could be seen in that light.
Not necessarily; just wondering what their understandings are based on. However, if they are situational in their thinking, perhaps they could be seen in that light.
No. It compares the religion, philosophy and ethics of Christianity and Islam. At least, the syllabus taught at the school attended by my kids does.Thanks for clarifying that Rhiannon. It sounds interesting if nothing else.
Being a Bible-believing Christian isn't a badge of superiority.I should hope not!! Rather, its an indication that such people are people who have understood that they are in need of the doctor that I mentioned on another thread.
On the other hand there are some Christians that I find to be incredibly compassionate and moral human beings. No doubt you may view them differently.Oddly enough, they base their thinking on many of the very interpretations that you seem to diss in the previous paragraph of your post, Rhi.
'Oddly enough', most of them use the Bible as a tool, not as a master. They prefer relationship with their God to idolatry of a book.Precisely, Rhi. You couldn't have pointed out what Christianity is all about much better than that post - mind you, you seem to forget the third leg of the triangle, relationship with other human beings. One form of relationship is only partial without the other.
Precisely, Rhi. You couldn't have pointed out what Christianity is all about much better than that post - mind you, you seem to forget the third leg of the triangle, relationship with other human beings. One form of relationship is only partial without the other.
Whilst I have met a few folk who idolise the Bible, I've never had a great deal to do with them.
The issue I have with this whole concept is just what the basis is for humanist moral thinking. It would appear not to be linked to an understanding of human life as having intrinsic value and purpose as there seems to be no grounds for a humanist understanding of purpose. Rather, humanism would seem to be based on situational thinking, so what might be seen as of value today might not be tomorrow.That is a matter of opinion and not one I agree with, certain in respect of the assumed negativity implied towards the concept of moral relativism.
One problem identified by the teachers at the school where I was governor was that they felt they had inadequate knowledge to teach RE properly given that now it is really comparative religion. For example, trying to explain to a class of nine year olds what the purpose of Buddhist meditation is defeated one because it wasn't something they'd ever engaged with.
Rose, you are describing PSHE.
The phenomenon and history of social darwinianism should be taught.