Religious Education, Critical Thinking and the Enlightenment

[Tempscire]

Just a little prefix on this one. Religion is a touchy subject, therefore I want to keep the discussion strictly about the issues raised regarding education and the points raised in the letter. There might be a temptation to focus on the example I gave with the evolution vs creationism argument, but I'd rather keep that for another thread if you feel it needs to be debated. If you're atheist, agnostic or religious feel free to say it if you want to, but I don't want this turning into a religious argument.

That said here is a letter I have written to the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency (the people who do the National Curriculum) and I thought it might be a nice point of discussion and lively debate on the forum:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I believe it is probably a good idea to confess straight away to being, irreversibly and unashamedly, an atheist. As this email is primarily regarding Religious matters, I feel it is important to view the context in which I am writing this letter.

I do not begrudge the teaching of Religious Education as part of the National Curriculum. My personal feelings aside I feel it is important (if only for pragmatic reasons) for young people to be taught about Religion. It is a core of the lives of many people throughout the world and to make no attempt to understand the beliefs of others can do nothing except create intolerance through misunderstanding. However I do object to the fact that Religious Education has an ephemeral and pervasive effect on the minds of young people that has little counterpoint.

One may argue that Science education could be considered the counterpoint, however the two are not entirely compatible. Science is the pursuit of truth, knowledge and data but doesn't necessarily provide the mental processes and tools for one to understand the abstracts of the date provided. As an example one could take the recent and ongoing "debate" of evolution vs creationism. Science is able to tell us that evolution exists and can present data to support this. The scientific consensus (as far as a consensus can ever be reached) is that evolution is a fact supported by evidence. However creationism either disavows evolution or (with little to no testable evidence) claims that "God" started evolution in the first place. Science can do little to refute this, as the idea that a "God" created the world and still continues to manipulate it's processes is a deeply held belief. This belief has, in most cases, been fostered by parents and loved ones from birth and, indeed, been supported by the National Curriculum. Furthermore "faith schools" are allowed to devote as much time as they please to Religious Education so long as they meet the minimum set by the National Curriculum for other subjects, further compounding a belief system that can be both rigid and downright hostile to critical thinking and knowledge that does not fit in with their pre-defined worldview.

While I may appear, in the last paragraph, repulsed by the idea of R.E. (which, it must be admitted, is somewhat true) I do, as I have mentioned, acknowledge the wisdom in teaching R.E. in a world where religion plays a major factor. Therefore I return to my previous point of a counterpoint to R.E. I propose one of two solutions to what I perceive to be a void in the education and reasoning skills of young people. My first and most preferable solution is to include, in the national curriculum, the subject of Critical Thinking, with lesson devoted to questioning the world around us: Where does a belief derive from?; Is there proof?; Is this proof reliable?; What evidence is there for this belief?; Are there alternative theories? The teaching of Critical Thinking would have applications not just in theoretical and academic surroundings, but also at a societal and work setting. Critical thinking makes us evaluate the way we view the world. It is very difficult to discriminate when you are constantly questioning the beliefs that discrimination is founded on. It is easy to innovate in business when one is able to evaluate critically the existing processes and then refine them.

My second idea, were the first unsuitable or unfeasible, would be to at least teach the Enlightenment during history lessons. The Enlightenment was an enormously important, culturally diverse and scientifically significant period in the history of the world. Understanding the process of challenging the established order that the Enlightenment represented would go at least some way towards teaching children some of the tools required to think critically for themselves.

I hope this letter has not seemed vitriolic or unreasonable at any point as this was certainly not my intention. I also apologize if this email has been in error to the wrong department or if it has no relevance to the function that this email address was set up for. If this is the case I would appreciate if you would forward this email to the appropriate person or organization.

Thank you for your time,

Daniel Tillbrook

Discuss.

 

[Haven]

I feel that it really depends on the context of the teaching. If Religious Education is taught as the "word of God" then I have issues with that as that can be seen as indoctrination and forcing secular (I'm assuming here) beliefs on young minds. If however Religion is taught as a Historical counterpart to help understand our social structures, our governments and many of the events behind many significant historic events then I whole heartedly approve. Religion whether you are religious or not affects our national identity, our society and our interactions with those around us. Understanding is a very helpful and positive thing in that light I believe.

 

[Panda with issues...]

Was I alone in finding everything taught in R.E lessons only confirmed my belief in science then?

 

[Gombol]

Was I alone in finding everything taught in R.E lessons only confirmed my belief in science then?

Semi-true here, too.

Almost every part of religion seems utter rubbish in my eyes. 1 guy making a universe too big for billion million gazillion bazillions whatever, humans to comprehend? Not to mention religion teaches "Incest is wrong" or whatever, and yet the "Entire human race started with 2 people." that means we are all related in some way, no matter how distant.

I kinda got kicked out of RE too. Refused to work saying it was all rubbish (And saying that in a Christian school makes the teachers kinda annoyed. )

 

[thatbloke]

It was only when I got into secondary school and out of my Church of England aided primary school that I realised that the guy who came in to our class each Thursday was in fact a priest, preaching from the bible, and that the "songs" we used to sing each morning in assembly were (mostly) Christian Hymns.

I have always been a believer in hard facts and while I think it's a nice idea that there could be some "higher being" out there that has created all of this, the simple fact is that Science has massive amounts of hard, provable evidence that refutes every single creationist theory ever presented.

I was forced to do a "short course" R.E. GCSE in my school, because the school needed one more course to fill a gap in the timetable - I hated every second of it, as except for about 3 lessons, it was all about Christianity. Those other three lessons touched very briefly on other religions.

This may sound slightly "wrong" of me but I really cannot understand how people can, in their right mind, dedicate their life to something that is entirely intangible and cannot be scientifically proven to exist - while they have been taught to believe that such "beings" exist and should be worshipped in a specific way, these teachings become so ingrained that it becomes held as the ONLY way to think, with all other possible theories or teachings rejected as "wrong" or "incorrect" regardless of whatever evidence can be presented to back them up.

While I agree about the fact that religious education should be a requirement, as religion is here to stay, it needs to be more relevant to current day religion as opposed to going over what some dude did 2000 years ago, and then as the guy in the email suggests schools should also teach kids how to think for themselves, and not necessarily that they should believe everything they are told.

 

[Tempscire]

Was I alone in finding everything taught in R.E lessons only confirmed my belief in science then?

No, I pretty much found R.E. absurd from the off. I've always been driven towards science as I've always been a sucker for things that are.... you know..... true.

I feel that it really depends on the context of the teaching. If Religious Education is taught as the "word of God" then I have issues with that as that can be seen as indoctrination and forcing secular (I'm assuming here) beliefs on young minds. If however Religion is taught as a Historical counterpart to help understand our social structures, our governments and many of the events behind many significant historic events then I whole heartedly approve. Religion whether you are religious or not affects our national identity, our society and our interactions with those around us. Understanding is a very helpful and positive thing in that light I believe.

As I say in the email, I don't mind being taught what other people believe, I just don't think you should try and make it sound convincing or something that should be beleived just because a 2000 year old book and a man in a dress say you should. My motive in the email was more to do with education than forwarding an non-theistic agenda. I just think it's very important for people to demand evidence before they are told to hold something as true, and I think R.E., in its own way, partially erodes that skill. Obviously that can't apply to every facet of life, but certainly for the big decisions. I don't necessarily think R.E. lessons should stop at this time (not until a majority of people wise-up at any rate) but I definitely think the skills that a Critical thinking class would provide would be enormously valuable.

 

[Panda with issues...]

I actually did a critical thinking course at school. I didn't think much of it to be honest. It was even more dry and dull than the R.E lessons. It was also filled with pointless jargon which overcomplicated everything that was, to me, self evident.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

I'm not really big on religion (although I used to be - church every sunday and all that carry on), but I found the R.E. classes we had at high school really interesting. If anything, the structure of the course encouraged your mind to travel down trails of thought that looked at religion in a more critical fashion, rather than imprinting secular views inside our heads. It's something that's bound to happen when you lay down 5 or 6 major religions side-by-side: Why does he worship him and I worship somebody else? Who's actually right? Is there one God? Is there a God? If I'd grown up in a family with heritage in country x, would I have been indoctrinated into that religion too? Would it have made me a different person? Is religion necessary? It kind of sets up that cognitive clash inside your head without being too blunt about it. Not that disbelief is the order of the day, either.

As to a Critical Thinking course, I don't know if that would fly. Try to teach things like world-awareness to an adolescent and you'll have them bored to tears within seconds. Critical thought should be something learned through life experience, I think, rather than dictated by a teacher.

 

[DeZmond]

I found the R.E. classes we had at high school really interesting. If anything, the structure of the course encouraged your mind to travel down trails of thought that looked at religion in a more critical fashion, rather than imprinting secular views inside our heads.

It's interesting that you say this, because my thoughts about our school's RE course was that it bored me completely. That might be something to do with the fact that my RE class was pretty unruly and so we never got much work done. Then again, it's entirely possible that I might have completely missed the point of the lessons in the first place!

As for the wider issue of teaching RE in schools, I'm fine with it as long as everything is presented with a balanced view, and perhaps with a bit more emphasis on the atheist viewpoint than I remember!

 

[Macca]

I tend to think that it really comes down to the person that's teaching it. It's been about 8 years since I done R.E. at school and I seem to remember it was quite open and balanced. The two teachers I had always spoke in terms of "Jewish people believe", "Christian people believe" etc etc. Nothing was ever taught as a matter of fact, and none of the teachers seemed to brush the lessons with biased towards their particular belief. Also (to my delight) we regularly engaged in whole class debates/discussions throughout the lessons.

It was also around this time that I got really interested in science and though I had never particularly bothered with anything religious before - I started to question the subject of god - and subsequently came to the conclusion that I just couldn't believe any such thing.

I really don't think the curriculum is the problem. I think the key point is the teacher, after all it is the teacher that is the medium through which the knowledge is passed to the child. Teachers in such positions should be required to teach "beliefs" in a manner non biased or tainted in anyway. Whether it be disputes about politics, religion or any other form of belief based education.

 

[Tempscire]

I tend to think that it really comes down to the person that's teaching it. It's been about 8 years since I done R.E. at school and I seem to remember it was quite open and balanced. The two teachers I had always spoke in terms of "Jewish people believe", "Christian people believe" etc etc. Nothing was ever taught as a matter of fact, and none of the teachers seemed to brush the lessons with biased towards their particular belief. Also (to my delight) we regularly engaged in whole class debates/discussions throughout the lessons.

It was also around this time that I got really interested in science and though I had never particularly bothered with anything religious before - I started to question the subject of god - and subsequently came to the conclusion that I just couldn't believe any such thing.

I really don't think the curriculum is the problem. I think the key point is the teacher, after all it is the teacher that is the medium through which the knowledge is passed to the child. Teachers in such positions should be required to teach "beliefs" in a manner non biased or tainted in anyway. Whether it be disputes about politics, religion or any other form of belief based education.

I can imagine that there's probably quite a lot of state schools that are quite good with R.E. However the fact of the matter is that while there isn't a counterpoint to the schools that make R.E. lessons the be all and end all of the lesson plans (I'm looking at you faith schools!) it will always be open to abuse. It's better, I feel, to have a lesson to encourage free thought and make it mandatory (the irony of making people free thinkers isn't lost on me, but you know what I mean)

 

[Angelic]

Well well well

First of, the letter was well written. Good job, Tempscire.

Secondly, we don't have RE in Czech Republic. Some religious schools do, but the vast majority doesn't. Hence my only experience with that matter comes from my three month stay in Oundle school, UK, near Peterborough where I studied briefly as an exchange student.

One of the subjects I chose to study (aside from Maths, Gov & Politics, Critical Thinking, Economics) was RE. The course was split into two, each with a different teacher and we had like two hours a week of each of them. One was largely philosophy, ethics and stuff like that (utilitarianism is the only thing I actually vaguely remember being taught) and the other one was religion. Now, the first one was fairly harmless, understandably. It didn't have much to do with religion, it was mostly philosophy anyway. The second one focused on various arguments that were made throughout the course of human history about the existence of God. We learned who formulated them, who disproved them, what are their pros and cons, why don't they work etc. Given, in retrospect, both the teachers were believers and you could kinda feel it, but much like Macca described, they never forced any beliefs on us and in my opinion kept the whole thing really rather objective and balanced.
During my stay we focused on Christianity (in the religious part of the course), but as I understand it during other forms they do Islam, Hinduism and others as well.

All in all, as long as education focuses on PRESENTING SEVERAL DIFFERENT religions, explaining their historical BACKGROUND and IMPACT they had on the civilization and include the explanation of arguments FOR and AGAINST God's existence, I think that would be bloody useful in creating more tolerant and informed society.

 

[luc]

I can provide a similar perspective, I studied R.E. up to GCSE and did an A-level in Critical Thinking, with further self-study into Critical Realism.

Each area of social study (for this context, though it is true of others) can be taught in a different method with a different emphasis on its constituent parts. To highlight this outside of context, one may have a source which comes to a conclusion about event x. Historically this source would be checked for authenticity, and then investigated as to the impact of that conclusion. On the other hand in Critical Thinking, the conclusion reached would be scrutinised for validity, and reasoning; this is of course very simplified.

I cannot effectively argue as to how R.E. should be taught, but I do agree that if an unfair allocation and seeming representation of R.E. above other subjects is being made, it can only be detrimental; the issue with that statement being the word 'unfair'.

To different people, to different social structures, religion has varying degrees of impact. Thus it is hard to decide a systemic approach as to the emphasis on how much importance should be given to R.E. Now, the same could be true of other subjects, and in the light of a variable that is hard to quantify my personal opinion on the matter is to have a planar rule. To elaborate, this would be the equal allocation of the multitude of subjects, both in time, workload and emphasis within the school and study environment (at least until options are made for GCSE, further education and beyond).

As per presenting a counterpoint lesson, I think with equal allocation the point is moot. I would argue that subjects don't necessarily need a counterpoint, and educational composition is something I've not been involved in crafting. Certainly however, if there is a matter with various opinions or well known heuristics or idioms from a cultural perspective about that matter then they should be presented. This is a topic of much further conversation, on the basis that curriculum development can simplify, or even neglect specific facts in order to teach either a broader abstract, or a principle that can be inferred. Exactly how this is done, and carried out, I don't want to breach into discussing; but I feel the point should be made.

***

With that slice of opinion and contribution over, I'm intrigued as to what sparked this correspondence?

 

[Tempscire]

With that slice of opinion and contribution over, I'm intrigued as to what sparked this correspondence?

Well I've held an atheist viewpoint for years but even before that I've always considered anything without evidence and veracity with suspicion. It just took me a little longer to work out that, from my viewpoint, science and the scientific method virtually override religion an mysticism in almost every particular.

As per presenting a counterpoint lesson, I think with equal allocation the point is moot. I would argue that subjects don't necessarily need a counterpoint, and educational composition is something I've not been involved in crafting.

As far as the above point goes I have possibly misrepresented the point somewhat. I think the point I was trying to get at isn't that R.E. should necessarily have a direct counterpoint or mirror image, more that there should be time given to teaching methods and ways of thought that run counter to what R.E. teaches. R.E., even in it's most benign form, teaches us that there are cultures and belief systems that provide answers to some people (answers that, in many cases, run counter to evidence). I simply think it's a good idea to provide kids with the mental tools to dissect an idea and judge it on merits only they can decide. I have no problem with someone looking at evolution (for example) deciding it sounds implausible and that the believe the "evidence" in a holy text, so long as they have truly and thoughtfully examined both. To be honest I can be guilty of using religion as something of a personal punching bag and this might be interpreted as ad hominem. However I feel that of all the lessons taught in the national curriculum this is the one that actually discourages independant thought, so I suppose my focusing on it was somewhat inevitable. But the educational benefit of the tools taught in critical thinking can be applied to any belief, be it religious, political or societal.

 

[Ronin Storm]

I did Religious Studies as one of my GCSEs. Actually, it's the one I got a B in, which is in no small part because I did no revision and incorrectly identified anti-semitism as discrimation against old people.

I did have a fairly mixed time of it. Some of the course was eye-openingly excellent, notably the parts on Apartheid. Some of it was distinctly bible study, though I think the point was to be dwell on the moral issues being raised. Some of it was a downright peculiar comparison of different Christian places of worship (e.g. Anglican versus Evangelical). I had different teachers for the first and second years of the course, which probably had something to do with it; the better stuff came with the second teacher, including a watching of Cry Freedom, which was pretty powerful stuff for a highly impressionable 15 year old.

I think, though, the course's heart was in the right place. Morality and ethics were front and centre despite the uninteresting (to me) sidelines in Christianity. All in all, a relative success.

I think the biggest success, for my part, was coming to the conclusion that one just can't know for certain one way or another. Thus, agnosticism seemed to be the only choice (for me). I say that because the "faith" of atheism is the certainty that there is no god/God and that is a level of certainty I find difficult to reach. Sure, seems like a fair possibility. But, then again, why wouldn't there be? Just can't know. But then being in that situation, I just stop worrying about it and let it be whatever it'll be.

Thing is, I think that's a study of faith more than it is a study of religion. I lack faith in the presence or absence of a deity. Doesn't worry me. Is what it is. But religion seems to be as much about how to be human as it is a consideration of the divine. Personally, I have no use for worship. Many people do, however. I think they find comfort in it (I certainly hope they do). I think, though I stand ready to be corrected, that worship is really in the province of "the divine", where practical religion also covers a lot of other ground about how to interact with others: things to do, things to avoid, ways to treat others, and so on. In a way, one could see it as a code of conduct. That part of religion, in an abstract sense, I have no real issue with. Of course, in some of the specifics of some religions, or at least in some interpretations of them, I can take pretty serious issue. Fairly sure there's no good reason to stone someone to death, for example, and both Christianity and Islam (and, I imagine, others) have references that indicate that this is the way certain crimes should be punished.

In that, a good dose of balanced, critical thinking is required. But critical thinking is a thing done by individuals from the perspective of individuals. Religions are written to apply as much to large groups as to individuals and the same thinking doesn't carry from small to large or vice versa, much in the same way that government doesn't make laws that just identify one person. In that, I think that religion is an attempt to bridge this gap between the many and the few or the individual and divise a code of conduct that can help these different levels work together in relative harmony, or at least not trying to stab each other in the face.

But how do you teach that to school children? Hell, how do you teach that to anyone?

 

[Silk]

Ban religion, end war.

 

[Tempscire]

All some very good food for thought in this thread so far. I'm glad it hasn't turned into the normal flame war you normally get when religion turns up on a forum (even though, to be fair, we're discussing education as opposed to religion) :-D

 

[luc]

As far as the above point goes I have possibly misrepresented the point somewhat. I think the point I was trying to get at isn't that R.E. should necessarily have a direct counterpoint or mirror image, more that there should be time given to teaching methods and ways of thought that run counter to what R.E. teaches.

At least in my brief experience with R.E. the subjects discussed and studied were given conflicting views. We did have discussions along the lines of "What if we had just the moral principles without a deity or deities being attributed with those moral principles?" And looking at things along the lines of faith as a control mechanism, a belief system, and as Ronin points out a way of understanding a populous.

Given this what, concisely, are the "ways of thought" taught by R.E. that you are referring to?

In that, a good dose of balanced, critical thinking is required. But critical thinking is a thing done by individuals from the perspective of individuals.

I'll agree here, that it does teach a skill from an individual point of view (i.e. in you gaining the skill), but I would like to add that it is aimed to deal with the argument rather than the individual/s making that argument.

...this gap between the many and the few or the individual and divise a code of conduct that can help these different levels work together in relative harmony, or at least not trying to stab each other in the face.

But how do you teach that to school children? Hell, how do you teach that to anyone?

Extending from this point, I certainly don't feel qualified to give suggestion on the matter, anyone else have thoughts? Should R.E. be re-classified in an attempt to address this specific point; especially in an agnostic, atheist or secular context?

 

[Belegon]

Looking over all the responses and insights, it would seem that most people have discovered - through the RE lesson - that religion is something to be questioned - and is not "Gospel" .

I've nothing against any religion - or aetheism - it does seem odd to me however, you get taught Religious Studies/ Education - which would emply your being stamped with a religion. Perhaps broadening the lesson to include Aetheism, Critical thinking and religion - and calling it Life Studies or something - allowing students to be critical and sympathetic to all sides and deciding on what they thinks right, being tested on the understanding of what they believe and comparing it to being religious or anti-religious.

I'd say we are in a majority critical world now. Most people have read/ know about Darwins theory of evolution. Realised that Snakes probably couldn't talk. Have asked - "Noah was how old?! coz 4000 seems a bit wrong!" and "If Adam and Eve had 4 sons and no daughters - and they where the only people on Earth - why aren't we extinct or horribly disfigured, 6 fingered, chinless inbreds?!"