RE and Humanities teachers help me out here please

Yes, that's more or less my problem. 'Truth' does have a single clear meaning: truth is 'what is actually the case'. Of course that has to be teased out philosophically, in ways that are much too complex for a Year 7 course in religion. But we don't start of with contested ideas of truth, in the same way as we start off with contested ideas of what god is, or what is just, etc

Scienceteacher, I think my problem with "truth" is that is does have a very commonly understood general meaning, along the lines of "that which is considered/understood commonly to be factual". Now, anything defined by one community as true may not be considered by another community in the same way - fine, I get that, and it's a really interesting topic for debate. But I'm not sure that belief isn't a more useful word, esp. for 11 year olds - it would be interesting to discuss, for example, when there is so much evidence to support a belief or hypothesis that it can be generally established as a truth (accepting that that's only ever truly possible in maths).

That said, I have been musing on this, and I do think it's an interesting and valuable think to learn and think about - it seems to me that it is particularly critical that it be taught very well indeed, as it can colour a child's approach to all of her learning. From the OP, it really doesn't seem to me that she has been well served by her teacher, and that's a bit worrying.

What do you mean by teach us all about Revelations? When will you need me? If I am not snowed under am happy tp
o

I quite looking at conflicting truth claims as some RE teachers like to do all lovey dovey waffly RE, all religions love one another and teach the same things. Well they dont and you are doing religions a disservice by saying that. But that is my personal hobby horse.

I think I am waffling sorry, have done a 14 hour day today without a break and am practically foaming at the mouth.

Habbibu I love students who are up for a debate.

I sometimes use the phrase truth claim rather than truth. I dont say that they are equal, it is something we discuss we discuss what makes something true. what kind of proof we need and whether religion can provide that proof. What do religious people mean when they claim the existence of God is true. Can something be true to one person and not the next? When we say My mum loves me, is that a truth statement?

It is unfortunate, in the vastness of the English language, that there are multiple meanings of the word truth. Of all words, you would think that one would only have one definition!

I think from my Scientific perspective, I am viewing the idea of a philosophical truth to be akin to a model or paradigm. I don't have too much of a problem with words having different definitions in different contexts, as long as everyone in the discussion knows what the context is.

sorry, twinset. Bet you're glad I'm not in your class...

I do think the exploring evidence, beliefs, theories etc is good stuff, and to be welcomed, but it's the equation of all these things as truths to be ranked that just strikes an odd chord with me.

lol Habbibu will see if I can find something online. I am far too tired to run for the hills. Could not even manage a small mound

lol Habbibu will see if I can find something online. I am far too tired to run for the hills. Could not even manage a small mound

It does all look rather confusing, and think I agree having looked at that link that it would be better to avoid using the word "truth" quite so liberally. In my day we just learned chunks of the Good News Bible by rote - without too much investigation of what beliefs we might hold in our undeveloped little heads - and this was considered perfectly adequate

Scienceteacher - don't want to sidetrack the discussion, but surely the scientific consensus on global warming is that it is anthropogenic?

Can you point me to some stuff about these truths please, twinset? What's the origin of their usage in teaching? What's the difference between a truth and a belief or a theory? Isn't it confusing to use the same word for mathematical proofs and religious beliefs?

I have been teaching about religious truths as long as i have been teaching, we look at differnt kinds of truths, what makes something true, what is the problem with a religious truth.

Habbibu more and more RE teachers have philosophy degrees. I have a theology degree and have studied some philosophy of religion at degree level. I teach A level philosophy of religion and use my subject knowledge from my theology. I am studying with the OU towards a psychology degree which I have put on hold to study pholosophy at a degree level as I think my suject knowledge is updating. I had to promise to do that in order to teach a level in my new school.

Part of the problem people are having is that theire is not a national curriculum for RE, we have locally agreed a locally agreed syllabus. I will check my one to see of it says anything about this

Yes, I get all that - it's the definition of "truths" that bothers me - I guess it is simpler than the philosophical debates I've read, but it still has to have come from somewhere. And yes, absolutely - learn to examine evidence critically, and make an argument - no disagreement from me there - but the OP mentioned odd things like life after death being a religious truth, not a belief. But it is a belief - if these truths are communally-held beliefs, they're still beliefs. It just all seems a bit woolly.

Where's twinset when you need her, eh?

Sorry lots of typos - in a hurry marking to do

I teach RS (only 'A' level now). I think it is difficult to make a judgement call about these things, because their written work in their books never give a true picture of everything that is going on in the classroom. The only way you can know would be if you asked the subject teacher.

It is an RS Course though - increasingly more and more schools are calling RS 'Philosophy and ethics' to make it more appealling to the students. It started with GCSE, but is increasingly seen at KS3 level too. Whilst they do start to think more about philosophical issues, its not really philosophy. But this is not unique to your DDs school, you'll find it happenning all over.

I also agree that if you look at the question 'does God exist', then the debate does need to be equally balanced. That said, of course there are two aims in RS - Learning about religion and learning from religion. This extra requirement make make work in the books appear unbalanced. (That said, when I taught this topic, we looked at what people can learn from humanism and atheism too - not just what people can learn from religious beliefs).

HTH

I don't see it being presented as fact, Habbibu. They are asked to rank different statements of truth according to their own values and opinions.

Unfortunately, from the Standards Site, we don't know what the KS3 definition of Truths is meant to be - presumably a lot simpler than the Wiki page. Maybe TSAP can help.

However, it does not appear to hold the view that Religious Truth is the Ultimate Truth. It says, "if you were to look for proof of God...". It doesn't say that God is real and here is where you will find him.

TBH, it's not unlike the direction I take in some of lessons. For example, if the focus of the lesson is Global Warming, then I would get the pupils to explore the anthropogenic explanation, and the natural one. I don't tell them what to think - just how to arrive at their own conclusion based on the evidence they have. This may involve trying to understand how 'experts' have arrived at their views, and the arguments they deliver.

Hiya

I would suggest asking to speak to the teacher to find out exactly what has happened and why. Although there may be a reasonable explanation, it all sounds a little peculiar to me as one of the major skills people generally try to teach in RE lessons is the skill of evaluation, so I would think that it would be incredibly important for the children to look at and explore all sides of the argument.

That may be true, justa, but ST's link bothered me too - just seemed so sweeping - here's a theory about truths, but it's essentially to be presented as fact, and then used to debate other "truths".