Religious studies in schools

Post by David Smith
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34921857

"BHA chief executive Andrew Copson said it had made the case for many
decades that the school curriculum on religions should include major
non-religious worldviews such as humanism."

That's rather bizarre. Why would anyone want to include a "worldview"
under the "curriculum on religions" if that worldview is truly
"non-religious"? Better to have a separate course on "non-religious
worldviews", whatever that might mean. (Cockroaches make the earth go
round? Ice cream is the supreme motivating force of life?) So I
wonder... what other worldviews, other than his own pseudo-religion,
would Mr. Copson want to include in the the school curriculum on
religions?

Pete Barrett

2015-11-29 09:44:00 UTC

Post by David Smith
A high court ruling stipulates that non-religious views should be
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34921857

"BHA chief executive Andrew Copson said it had made the case for many
decades that the school curriculum on religions should include major
non-religious worldviews such as humanism."
That's rather bizarre. Why would anyone want to include a "worldview"
under the "curriculum on religions" if that worldview is truly
"non-religious"? Better to have a separate course on "non-religious
worldviews", whatever that might mean. (Cockroaches make the earth go
round? Ice cream is the supreme motivating force of life?) So I
wonder... what other worldviews, other than his own pseudo-religion,
would Mr. Copson want to include in the the school curriculum on
religions?

If the object of teaching children about religions other than their own is
to prevent the worst effects of religious bigotry by giving them some
understanding of other religions (and I don't see what else it's for), then
surely the time has gone when only religious views needed to be considered?
There are enough non-religious view which they need to understand for there
to be a good case for teaching them in school, and the lesson to use for
that is the one which also teaches the various religious views.

If that means that the lesson needs to be called something other than
Religious Studies, then so be it - the French teach Philosophy to their
children, and perhaps we should do the same.

--
Pete BARRETT

Abhidevananda

2015-11-29 13:13:13 UTC

Post by David Smith
A high court ruling stipulates that non-religious views should be
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34921857

"BHA chief executive Andrew Copson said it had made the case for many
decades that the school curriculum on religions should include major
non-religious worldviews such as humanism."
That's rather bizarre. Why would anyone want to include a "worldview"
under the "curriculum on religions" if that worldview is truly
"non-religious"? Better to have a separate course on "non-religious
worldviews", whatever that might mean. (Cockroaches make the earth go
round? Ice cream is the supreme motivating force of life?) So I
wonder... what other worldviews, other than his own pseudo-religion,
would Mr. Copson want to include in the the school curriculum on
religions?

If the object of teaching children about religions other than their own is
to prevent the worst effects of religious bigotry by giving them some
understanding of other religions (and I don't see what else it's for), then
surely the time has gone when only religious views needed to be considered?
There are enough non-religious view which they need to understand for there
to be a good case for teaching them in school, and the lesson to use for
that is the one which also teaches the various religious views.
If that means that the lesson needs to be called something other than
Religious Studies, then so be it - the French teach Philosophy to their
children, and perhaps we should do the same.

Pete, by and large, I agree with you. I can, however, conceive of
other reasons... indeed perhaps better reasons... for having a
curriculum on religious studies. And I think that the curriculum
should cover all major religions, including the dominant local
religion. I think that such a curriculum should strive to identify
both the similarities and the differences among religions. I think
that there should be an examination of the ways in which religions
function and their broad social impact (preferably with both
historical and current references). I think that the dogmas that
distinguish each religion should be identified and analyzed in both
social and individual terms. With such a curriculum, I am fairly
confident that the end result would be a tendency to deprecate
religion, something I would deem a step forward for society. In short,
my goal would not be to increase tolerance of all religions but rather
to increase repudiation of all religions (while maintaining a
humanistic tolerance for anyone's beliefs, right or wrong, that do no
apparent harm).

Yes, we could subsume the study of religion under the broad category
of philosophy; but, presumably, religious studies already fall under
that category. However, if the BHA's strain of humanism is indeed
non-religious - as Mr. Copson claims - then why should we subsume the
study of that humanism under the study of religion? To my thinking, it
is illogical and, if not hypocritical, then at least ill-conceived. It
is one thing to classify humanism as a "religion" in a legal sense.
There, it is just a matter of terminology. But it is an entirely
different thing to classify humanism as a "religion" in an academic
sense. In the latter case, terminology is not a valid excuse. Even a
"non-religious religion" would still be an actual religion.

Pete Barrett

2015-11-30 18:22:15 UTC

Post by David Smith
A high court ruling stipulates that non-religious views should be
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34921857

"BHA chief executive Andrew Copson said it had made the case for many
decades that the school curriculum on religions should include major
non-religious worldviews such as humanism."
That's rather bizarre. Why would anyone want to include a "worldview"
under the "curriculum on religions" if that worldview is truly
"non-religious"? Better to have a separate course on "non-religious
worldviews", whatever that might mean. (Cockroaches make the earth go
round? Ice cream is the supreme motivating force of life?) So I
wonder... what other worldviews, other than his own pseudo-religion,
would Mr. Copson want to include in the the school curriculum on
religions?

If the object of teaching children about religions other than their own
is to prevent the worst effects of religious bigotry by giving them some
understanding of other religions (and I don't see what else it's for),
then surely the time has gone when only religious views needed to be
considered? There are enough non-religious view which they need to
understand for there to be a good case for teaching them in school, and
the lesson to use for that is the one which also teaches the various
religious views.
If that means that the lesson needs to be called something other than
Religious Studies, then so be it - the French teach Philosophy to their
children, and perhaps we should do the same.

*You* may think (even *I* may think) that that's a better reason, but I
don't think a government or a school would or should - it's no part of a
government's duty to inculcate in children a tendency to deprecate religion.
It *is* part of a government's duty to make sure that people keep the peace,
and that may mean inculcating religious tolerance at a young age.

Post by Abhidevananda
Yes, we could subsume the study of religion under the broad category
of philosophy; but, presumably, religious studies already fall under
that category. However, if the BHA's strain of humanism is indeed
non-religious - as Mr. Copson claims - then why should we subsume the
study of that humanism under the study of religion? To my thinking, it
is illogical and, if not hypocritical, then at least ill-conceived. It
is one thing to classify humanism as a "religion" in a legal sense.
There, it is just a matter of terminology. But it is an entirely
different thing to classify humanism as a "religion" in an academic
sense. In the latter case, terminology is not a valid excuse. Even a
"non-religious religion" would still be an actual religion.

--
Pete BARRETT

Abhidevananda

2015-11-30 19:41:54 UTC

Post by David Smith
A high court ruling stipulates that non-religious views should be
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34921857

"BHA chief executive Andrew Copson said it had made the case for many
decades that the school curriculum on religions should include major
non-religious worldviews such as humanism."
That's rather bizarre. Why would anyone want to include a "worldview"
under the "curriculum on religions" if that worldview is truly
"non-religious"? Better to have a separate course on "non-religious
worldviews", whatever that might mean. (Cockroaches make the earth go
round? Ice cream is the supreme motivating force of life?) So I
wonder... what other worldviews, other than his own pseudo-religion,
would Mr. Copson want to include in the the school curriculum on
religions?

If the object of teaching children about religions other than their own
is to prevent the worst effects of religious bigotry by giving them some
understanding of other religions (and I don't see what else it's for),
then surely the time has gone when only religious views needed to be
considered? There are enough non-religious view which they need to
understand for there to be a good case for teaching them in school, and
the lesson to use for that is the one which also teaches the various
religious views.
If that means that the lesson needs to be called something other than
Religious Studies, then so be it - the French teach Philosophy to their
children, and perhaps we should do the same.

Well, Pete, if we take government to be a legislative body and we
conceive of law as primarily serving the role of maintaining social
cohesion... then the duty of government is to promote mutual tolerance
among the citizenry. Mutual tolerance among the citizenry is not the
same thing as religious tolerance.

Historically, and even today, religion is a major divisive factor in
society. In other words, by its very nature, religion tends to run
contrary to the goal of promoting mutual tolerance among the
citizenry. And, oddly enough, that even applies when everyone in a
particular society subscribes to the same religion. This is because
most, if not all, religions tend to establish an elite group or groups
among the adherents. Often we find that women are given second-class
status. Often we find a priestly caste that receives preferential
treatment. Often we find various "signs of election" that imply a
greater closeness to God and hence higher social status.

So, here we disagree. I do not think it is the duty of government to
promote religious tolerance at any age whatsoever. Mutual tolerance,
yes; religious tolerance, no. With mutual tolerance, we can accept
anyone believing in any religion as long as s/he does no harm. With
religious tolerance, we tend to endorse or even promote dogma and
various antisocial activities.

That said, I don't think it well advised for any government to
announce that the purpose of religious education is to deprecate
religion. (By the way, here I am using the word, "deprecate", in the
same way as computer programmers do.) I also don't think that a
curriculum on religious education needs to make any direct or
discourteous attempt to deprecate religion. I merely state my opinion
that an unbiased and rational study of religion would tend to
deprecate it automatically.

Pete Barrett

2015-12-01 22:02:43 UTC

Post by Abhidevananda
Well, Pete, if we take government to be a legislative body and we
conceive of law as primarily serving the role of maintaining social
cohesion... then the duty of government is to promote mutual tolerance
among the citizenry. Mutual tolerance among the citizenry is not the
same thing as religious tolerance.

I would say that religious tolerance is part of mutual tolerance, at least
as long as religion exists (and I don't see it dying any time soon).

Post by Abhidevananda
Historically, and even today, religion is a major divisive factor in
society. In other words, by its very nature, religion tends to run
contrary to the goal of promoting mutual tolerance among the
citizenry.

Not every religious person is intolerant of others. In fact, probably the
majority of religius people, of all religions, are tolerant, rather than
intolerant. However, every religion that I know of does have some intolerant
people, and they do tend to shout the loudest and cause most trouble. Non-
religious ideologies can be pretty intolerant, too.

Post by Abhidevananda
And, oddly enough, that even applies when everyone in a
particular society subscribes to the same religion. This is because
most, if not all, religions tend to establish an elite group or groups
among the adherents. Often we find that women are given second-class
status. Often we find a priestly caste that receives preferential
treatment. Often we find various "signs of election" that imply a
greater closeness to God and hence higher social status.
So, here we disagree. I do not think it is the duty of government to
promote religious tolerance at any age whatsoever. Mutual tolerance,
yes; religious tolerance, no. With mutual tolerance, we can accept
anyone believing in any religion as long as s/he does no harm. With
religious tolerance, we tend to endorse or even promote dogma and
various antisocial activities.

I don't think we disagree by much. Some of it is merely terminological -
what I'm calling religious tolerance is part of what you're calling mutual
tolerance, focussing on the specific matter of accepting other people's
religions.

Post by Abhidevananda
That said, I don't think it well advised for any government to
announce that the purpose of religious education is to deprecate
religion. (By the way, here I am using the word, "deprecate", in the
same way as computer programmers do.) I also don't think that a
curriculum on religious education needs to make any direct or
discourteous attempt to deprecate religion. I merely state my opinion
that an unbiased and rational study of religion would tend to
deprecate it automatically.

--
Pete BARRETT

Abhidevananda

2015-12-02 04:56:02 UTC

Post by Abhidevananda
So, here we disagree. I do not think it is the duty of government to
promote religious tolerance at any age whatsoever. Mutual tolerance,
yes; religious tolerance, no. With mutual tolerance, we can accept
anyone believing in any religion as long as s/he does no harm. With
religious tolerance, we tend to endorse or even promote dogma and
various antisocial activities.

I also don't think we disagree much. And, yes, the differences are
mainly terminological. But words, though far from perfect, are
important. As a humanist, I stand with what was perhaps best said by
Chandidas, a late 14th or early 15th Century Bengali poet and ardent
devotee of Krishna. Chandidas wrote:

Shuńaha mánuś bhái, sabár upare mánuś satya, táhár upare nái
[Listen, my fellow human beings, humanity is the highest truth; there
is nothing above it.]

And that is why I find the position of the BHA so repugnant. By their
actions, the BHA seem to set their notions of materialistic atheism
above humanity.

This is aptly demonstrated by the quiz on the BHA home page. As I
indicated in an earlier posting, my every reply to that quiz was
honest and humane; but my score on the quiz was only 18%... they
weren't even interested to have me on their mailing list. Why was
that? Only because they wrongly inferred from my replies that I
"almost certainly have a religious faith" - as if they don't - and
therefore "humanism is probably not for [me]".

My repugnance is also fueled by the BHA's longstanding effort to
insert their brand of secular humanism - which they implicitly
misrepresent as the whole of humanism - into the GCSE curriculum on
religious studies. To do so, they have labeled their secular humanism
as "non-religious religion", a notion so absurd that even a child
would blush to propose it.

Wiping away the facade, the BHA seems to be primarily concerned to
promote atheism, a belief system that is certainly no more scientific
or rational than theism. On top of that, atheism lacks, in large
measure, the qualities of theism that are most attractive – the
ability to provide comfort, hope, and inspiration.

Philip

2015-11-29 18:58:44 UTC

Post by David Smith
A high court ruling stipulates that non-religious views should be
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34921857

"BHA chief executive Andrew Copson said it had made the case for many
decades that the school curriculum on religions should include major
non-religious worldviews such as humanism."
That's rather bizarre. Why would anyone want to include a "worldview"
under the "curriculum on religions" if that worldview is truly
"non-religious"? Better to have a separate course on "non-religious
worldviews", whatever that might mean. (Cockroaches make the earth go
round? Ice cream is the supreme motivating force of life?) So I
wonder... what other worldviews, other than his own pseudo-religion,
would Mr. Copson want to include in the the school curriculum on
religions?

I wonder what the BHA's position would be on the inclusion of non-scientific
worldveiws in the science curriculum.

Abhidevananda

2015-11-30 05:32:17 UTC

Post by Philip

Post by David Smith
A high court ruling stipulates that non-religious views should be
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34921857

"BHA chief executive Andrew Copson said it had made the case for many
decades that the school curriculum on religions should include major
non-religious worldviews such as humanism."
That's rather bizarre. Why would anyone want to include a "worldview"
under the "curriculum on religions" if that worldview is truly
"non-religious"? Better to have a separate course on "non-religious
worldviews", whatever that might mean. (Cockroaches make the earth go
round? Ice cream is the supreme motivating force of life?) So I
wonder... what other worldviews, other than his own pseudo-religion,
would Mr. Copson want to include in the the school curriculum on
religions?

I wonder what the BHA's position would be on the inclusion of non-scientific
worldveiws in the science curriculum.

That's a very good point and well stated. Indeed, I wonder what the
BHA's position would be on the inclusion of anything at all that is
largely non-scientific - for example, poetry - in the science
curriculum. Copson's position is absurd, and he appears to be taking a
short-term, group-seeking, opportunistic approach... which hardly
jives with my concept of rationality or humanism.

David Smith

2015-11-30 23:45:18 UTC

Post by Philip
I wonder what the BHA's position would be on the inclusion of non-scientific
worldveiws in the science curriculum.

Maybe the BHA's position would depend on how the 'non-scientific' worldviews were presented. Education involves the provision of information but also encourages critical thought. Comparing and contrasting the arguments and evidence concerning intelligent design and evolution might be beneficial, though perhaps the subject is ducked because it is controversial.

Somewhat similarly, some coverage of ethical worldviews that don't involve belief in a supernatural god, within the context of religious studies, doesn't seem misplaced to me. This could serve to promote thought about issues such as the source of morality and the role of ritual. There are other worldviews besides humanism that might be excluded if too narrow a definition of 'religious studies' were to be adopted - for instance, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism.

Dave Smith

Abhidevananda

2015-12-01 02:42:59 UTC

Post by David Smith

Post by Philip
I wonder what the BHA's position would be on the inclusion of
non-scientific worldveiws in the science curriculum.

Yes, but the point here is a little different. The concern was to give
parity to the level of instruction of humanism, as compared to
Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. So,
here, the question would be more like: In a curriculum on science,
should the theory of intelligent design be accorded equal weight with
the theory of evolution? Naturally, in the same way as evolution would
be explained and backed by scientific investigation, the theory of
intelligent design would be explained and backed by religious scripture.

Post by David Smith
Somewhat similarly, some coverage of ethical worldviews that don't
involve belief in a supernatural god, within the context of
religious studies, doesn't seem misplaced to me. This could serve
to promote thought about issues such as the source of morality and
the role of ritual. There are other worldviews besides humanism
that might be excluded if too narrow a definition of 'religious
studies' were to be adopted - for instance, Buddhism, Confucianism
and Taoism.

Well, Buddhism had already been included in the latest GCSE
curriculum. See http://tinyurl.com/ny4ja58.

Perhaps a large part of the problem is that "Philosophy and Applied
Ethics" is taught under the curriculum of "Religious Studies".
Personally, I would do it the other way around. I would have a
curriculum on "Philosophy and Applied Ethics" - or, better still, two
separate curricula, one for "Philosophy" and one for "Ethics" - and
include "Religious Studies" under that curriculum or those curricula.
In that way, there would be scope to cover a larger range of topics
and to do so in a more balanced fashion.

But from the above remarks... and from the general nature of this
case... it seems that the BHA may have been more concerned to promote
its outlook of secular humanism rather than humanism as a whole. From
a historical perspective, humanism has its roots in theism, not
atheism; and humanism continues to this day to be both theistic and
nontheistic or atheistic.

As an example of the atheistic bias of the BHA and its _religious_
misrepresentation of humanism, consider the following. Out of
curiosity, I took the quiz that is offered on the home page of the BHA
(https://humanism.org.uk/). There are 10 multiple-choice questions.
The answers offered are often somewhat restrictive and somewhat
repetitive. Each and every question presents at least one theistic
response and one atheistic response. I took the test four times. Here
are the results:

1. I answered each question honestly and correctly to the best of my
ability and within the parameters of the possible answers offered.
______________________________________________________________________
We calculate you are 18% humanist.

You almost certainly have a religious faith, and Humanism is probably
not for you - though you may agree with humanists on some issues. The
BHA regularly works with religious groups to achieve common goals, so
do have a look around our website to find areas on which we agree -
there might be more than you think!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2. I answered each question in the most selfish way possible, given
the options offered.
______________________________________________________________________
We calculate you are 41% humanist.

You have some religious beliefs, but you agree with some aspects of
humanist thinking. Check out our site and see what you think.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3. I answered the questions randomly, just clicking the first reply
offered without reading either the question or the answers:
______________________________________________________________________
We calculate you are 62% humanist.

You may be an agnostic, or culturally religious. Humanism may be for
you - do have a look around our site. You could also sign up for our
weekly e-bulletin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4. I answered the questions by carefully choosing what I deemed to be
a reasonable reply from a largely self-centered materialist:
______________________________________________________________________
We calculate you are 92% humanist.

You are a humanist, or very close to humanist thinking. Many people
are, often without even knowing it. Why not sign up for our weekly
e-bulletin?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I did not take the quiz a fifth time, because it would have been a
snap to ace it by offering replies along the lines of a materialistic
atheist with a moderate ability to conceal her/his selfishness. :)

David Smith

2016-02-01 20:34:41 UTC