h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

marking...

Heard an interesting discussion on Radio 4's Today program that said that the thing many people would like to see introduced to the core National curriculum is philosophy. This was being argued from both a business leader, who wants philosphy to be taught alongside practical and vocational skills, and from an academic. It was a surprisingly fluffy discussion for the Today program as they didn't have anyone opposing the idea. David Milliband was on before saying that he didn't think the core curriculum should be overloaded, however, I think if people keep asking for this inclusion then maybe it isn't too far away

Woo-hoo! If I start training now these past 4 years of university might come in useful for soemthing!

Glee! * off clicking his heels as he goes*

I found the R4 philosophy discussion interesting as well - one of those times I arrive at work and have to sit in the car looking a prawn while the piece finishes before I can turn the radio off and get into the office.

Two small comments stick in my mind about it:

Number 1: they briefly mentioned critical thinking as an alternative to philosophy but this was never followed up on. I find that I fall back on the statement of "Use some critical thinking!" quite abit in discussions these days as there seems to be a lack of it around when people take things at face value. I would put forward this as something to be taught as a precursor to studying philosophy as they are subtley different. Philosophy is about thinking critically about the human condition and the world BUT you need to know how to critically think before studying philosophy properly. Critical thinking is something that can (and should) be applied to anything being studied or solved - I certainly wish I had been given that ability earlier in my life.

and number 2: the comment that philosophy need not be a core subject as morals and ethics are taught in RS (which I presume is Religious Studies). I found this comment at odds with the comment about philosophy and critical thinking before hand. One place where critical thinking is not prevalent is religion - how many times have I heard the phrase "Think with your heart not your head" from my Christian friends. Well, I think with my head because that is wher my brian is. I would certainly be heartened if critical thinking/philosophy was taught along side RS as it may actually lead more people to see that religion is a necessary invention by and for the human condition to cope with life in the past. By bringing in philosophy/critical thinking one would learn about the human condition; understand it more; be more content in oneself and hence not need religion and it could be consigned to the past where it belongs.

Bringing this post in line with the topic: my proposal above would be as close to 'teaching athiesm'(sticks in throat) as we could get.

hi Kelli, Alfster,

It seems the basic 'three R' subjects (reading, riting, rithmatic) are not ones that, in early years, require critical thinking. But once those basics have been learned to a point, I do think that teaching children, say aged 9 and up, to start thinking for themselves and not just accepting what they are told, can only be a good thing.

<>

Yes, it's a dodgy term but in fact the idea is more to teach *about* atheism, as well as other religions and philosophies. To broaden a child's knowledge of what actually exists out there in the real world. I certainly would have adored such a class when I was at school.

How relevent can an RE class about Christianity be to kids from Muslim or other religious backgrounds? Or those who grow up in an agnostic or atheist environment at home? Why should Christianity be the only religion taught about in most state schools?

The whole idea of the original article which began this thread was that the course suggested would be an REM (religion, ethics, morals) type of course, which would include teaching kids *about* other concepts that relate to religion, etc, but not specifically *teaching* how to become one or the other. Or that one was more important than another. Just a broad overview.

When I consciously abandoned the RC church that I was brought up with, around age 12, I found I had nothing else to fall back on. So it became a case of simply 'running away' from something I felt was personally harmful. And not knowing that there were other spiritual or philosophical options open to me. So I do believe that giving kids options, or at least the knowledge of these options existing, is a very important part of basic education.

az

Yes, it's a dodgy term but in fact the idea is more to teach *about* atheism, as well as other religions and philosophies. To broaden a child's knowledge of what actually exists out there in the real world. I certainly would have adored such a class when I was at school.

This does sound like a good idea - surely this is what RE should be: teaching about all aspects of religion

How relevent can an RE class about Christianity be to kids from Muslim or other religious backgrounds?

Most relevant of all. If they're from (eg) muslim backgrounds then I assume they know about islam and could then learn about all the other religions.

Oh it'd be really good to see critical thinking being taught in schools. People learn so much better when they start connecting things up with the 'why' parts.

A while back, probably more than 100 posts now, people were talking about rabid atheists? I thought I'd try to explain this a little seeing as I've caught myself doing the same on occasion.

The obvious cause is as a reaction. To religion being forced in school assemblies, by parents etc. Also to the seemingly largely negative influence it has on society and has had historically.

For example the concept that blind belief and ignorance is better than thinking and knowledge. Or the Roman Catholic stance against contraceptives.

Another thing that strikes me personally is it seems that by choosing most forms of Christianity, people are in their minds exchanging their personal eternal paradise for everyone else's damnation.

But you get all types of people in any group you look at.

Hi az,
You asked some questions there but I think we have one of those tricky wording problems.

"How relevent can an RE class about Christianity be to kids from Muslim or other religious backgrounds? Or those who grow up in an agnostic or atheist environment at home?"

To which I would say 'very relevant indeed' for all the same reasons that christians should learn *about* Islam, Buddhism or Judaism. It is relevant to teach kids of all backgrounds about as many belief systems (and the absence thereof) as possible, because that breeds understanding and tolerance. I think you probably meant this anyhow, because the next question was:

"Why should Christianity be the only religion taught about in most state schools?" To which the answer is that it shouldn't

One of the speakers this morning said that he had visited a primary school where they had philosophy lessons Critical thinking would definintely be useful too.

Does anyone know if the RE segment in the core curriculum requires that kids learn about more than one religion?

hi Kelli, moose,

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my last posting. I was questioning the relevence of *only* being taught about the Christian religion in school, which (taught in this manner) I don't think would be particularly relevent to anyone who wasn't a Christian.


az

(Hi, azahar...)

Hi Della,

I think you have said here previously that you don't agree with RE classes in state-run schools. Which, as you know, are Christian-based classes.

What is your opinion about the course we have been talking about here recently - one that teaches *about* various religions and personal philosophies, including atheism? (sorry if you have said something about this before, can't remember clearly now if you have or not).


az

<>

I think that's a very good idea, providing that there is no 'evangelism' for *any* particular viewpoint...

Fascinating... I just stumbled into this thread.

I was taught RE at school in Essex for 1/2hr a week, about 15 years ago now. Then my family moved to the US where religion is not taught in state schools. The RE classes were usually generic Christianity--good deeds done in the name of it, et cetera. We used to try to get our RE teacher to talk about how he was evacuated during WW2, which was much more interesting.

I was under the impression that RE was taught in the UK because Church of England was the country's official religion (I see that teaching RE has changed and varies from area to area by reading some of this thread).

Even though Christianity is not taken very seriously by most of the UK population (as I remember it)--it seems more like state support for good architecture (churches) and 'doing good' in social clubs without caring too much about the underlying belief system. Perhaps atheism lacks such social clubs and loses out to religion there?

I was listening to a discussion on the radio yesterday stemming from ITV wanting to cut its obligation to a certain number of hours of religious broadcasting. A distinction was made between broadcast services as opposed to programmes about religion.

Does anyone think that radio & TV channels should be under any obligation to broadcast Christian religious services/services of other faiths?

Private enterprise stations, no. But state broadcasters, while they spend 30% of their time broadcasting sport (as a public service, they say!) ought to provide public services for other sectors of society. While they'd never broadcast say, a chess match (and they'd probably get as many viewers for that as they do for say, American baseball, which is broadcast here - I don't see anything wrong with boradcasting a church service, or a service in a mosque or synagogue, for the sake of elderly, disabled or sick people who'd otherwise not get a chance to participate in any way...
After all, if they broadcast rugby for those who can't get to a game...

I came across this article yesterday and posted it elsewhere, but it also reminded me of this old thread.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/faithschools/story/0,13882,1392397,00.html

"The head of Ofsted was today labelled "highly irresponsible" and accused of Islamophobia by prominent Muslim figures after he accused independent faith schools of threatening to undermine social cohesion."

"Mr Sacranie added a call for more state-funded Muslim schools. "At present there are over 100 Muslim schools, but only five of them receive state funding."



I didn't realise that there were any state run independent faith schools - I thought they were all privately funded.

Why should the state pay for *any* independent faith schools?


az

There is an argument that the state saves some money by not educating the students in the main system.

One problem is that while there may not be any real problem with the teaching provided by moderate wings of religions, there needs to be some line drawn if schools are teaching the students that they are chosen people, that the majority of unbelievers are inferior, etc, if they are teaching boys and girls differently or reinforcing sexism, or if things like religion start interfering with proper science.

If/when such a line is drawn, it's likely it will upset the more radical and noisy elements of a particular religion, and is pretty guaranteed to result in accusations of discrimination of one kind or another.

An additional problem is that for peoples who are relatively recent immigrants to the UK, segregated schools pose a particular problem of reinforcing social separation, which is less likely to be a problem for long-present religions (at least in England and Wales, I don't think there's much segregation of Catholic and various Protestants in housing, etc)
It *is* certainly true that for immigrant communities which tend to have been segregated economically or by [fear of, or actual] racism into one area of a town, even state schools can end up being effectively segregated by catchment area, but at least in that situation, there is rather more hope that as some people get more successful, they will spread to other areas of town and start to integrate rather more. With a faith school, even when someone moves up in the world, and moves away, they may still be under some pressure to send their child to the One True School.

Personally, I don't see why a school needs to be religious even if the students (or rather, the *parents*) are. There's no such thing as Christian chemistry, Islamic woodwork, Jewish biology, Atheist French, or secular IT.
If parents are scared their darlings will drop their religion without constant reinforcement if they mix with heathens, they obviously don't have much faith in its power.

Noggin, that's as near as damn it too what I was about to post. Philosophy classes would certainly be an improvement. Personally, I feel that it would enhance a students education all-round, not simply acquaint them with the life of Plato or Descartes.

A little more emphasis on teaching *how* to think, rather than teaching certain facts which need to be learned, would be one of the best things I can imagine in the education system. With a little luck, in a few years we might even have a population who aren't so easily waylaid by snappy sounding tabloid headlines!

B*gger it, just realised I was replying to something 11 mths old. Ah well!

That's okay, I doubt he's changed his mind since then.

And it *was* an excellent point.


az