RE and Humanities teachers help me out here please

If it is called a philosophy course it should teach philosophy. I can't understand the elision of these two subjects. And if it is a philosophy course, I don't think that the concepts of different categories of truth for different areas is a good or intuitive way of addressing the subject to 11-12 year olds.

And probably the idea of different sorts of truth isn't sustainable anyway.

But it goes way beyond religion, and into all areas of learning - and yes, obv. philosophy does do that, and if well understood and thought through can really help critical thinking BUT... It's the kind of thing I'd expect first year undergrads to be really really thinking about - not 11 yo to copy off a blackboard.

It assumes that the RS teacher knows what is meant, and just refers to them as focus of activities and learning outcomes.

It doesn't TW.

I couldn't find that either, thready. I'm hoping that twinset comes back to help!

Where on that standards site do they explain what they mean by a 'philosophical truth theory'? It sounds like they might be rather muddled. It doesn't sound like they are doing 11yo children any favours by intrcducing something very complex and difficult?

Is this RE under a new name or is it philosophy. They don't seem clear what they are aiming at.

Justa - I think I get your definition, and can see how it makes sense. But this, from the OP:

"They have been told that the fact that there is life after death is a religious truth, rather than a belief. "

doesn't seem to fit your model either.

Scienceteacher, I agree broadly with your last post, but think that the teacher has some questions to answer about allowing the class to examine both sides of an argument, etc.

How much training/knowledge would the teacher have to have to teach this stuff sensibly? My very very brief reading suggests that it's a contested area of philosophy anyway, and something I'd expect maybe a philosophy graduate to teach. Are RE teachers expected to have this level of philosophical education?

I think one of the issues with education in general at the moment, and this was in the news last week, is that we often try to teach skills ahead of knowledge.

In the Standards Site lesson plan that I linked earlier, if you look at the detailed activities, they are very much about skills and attitude, rather than knowledge and definitions. I believe, based on my subject, that you have to have a good grounding in knowledge before acquiring skills.

Perhaps the issue is that they are jumping the gun a bit? The knowledge of the truth theories is eye-watering - I don't think I have the patience or inclination to get my mind wrapped around any of them, tbh. It is hard to imagine that an 11 year old would have the mental capacity.

I think that any outrage should not be targeted at this teacher, but towards the QCA and, in turn, senior managers within the school or LEA.

The activities, in themselves, don't seem damaging to me, but whether the specific learning objectives are met is a different matter.

Yes - I've just been reading wikipedia stuff on truth theories and while, as Iorek says, in theory it's really interesting, it seems more a topic for debate in itself, rather than something that can (ironically) be presented as "true" to a class of 11 year olds. Need to read more, I think - may have got to grips with it by the time dd gets to this stage!

Hmm. Well, have read scienceteacher's link a bit, and still think it's odd. Where does this concept come from originally? I'm guessing a branch of philosophy that I'm not familiar with - "truth theories are positive things that they hold to be true" - am also not good on postmodernism, but at first reading that seems to be quite a strong form, a la Hunting of the Snark. Would appreciate more on this.

I've really never heard of "truth theories", and I don't think I understand your argument, scienceteacher. Am off to google.

I think people are misinterpreting the concept of a philosophical truth theory. It is not exactly the same thing as an honest fact.

Looking deeper at this topic, I don't really see the value in making a counter argument against each of the truth theories. The truth theories are positive things that they hold to be true. Let the other theories do the debating.

For example, if you want to argue against a religious truth, what you are actually doing is speaking up for one or more of the other truth theory. There is really no need to be negative about any of the theories.

Maybe I am taking logical truth too seriously.

I don't think I have ever said "religious truth" in my life. Or heard anyone else say it!

It does sound pretty bad from the OP, but if "religious truth" is a reasonably commonly used concept, then I would think it not a bad idea to introduce it to children in those terms, at least in the context of studying a number of different religions. If they know that there are different ideas that are called "truths", and that these are often contradictory, it will surely provoke them into questioning what people mean by truth, and whether one should always accept as face value those things which are presented as "true". Which must be a good thing.

justa - would you give it a go, though? Because I've studied a bit of philosophy and religion, plus science and history, and this "truths" thing seems a bit - well, not useful. What's wrong with saying that a religious belief is just that? And that moral codes are to do with social norms? Truths implies a universality and authority that can't be justified in many of these cases?

Yes, it's the "truths" thing that gets me - how long has this been the language used? There are theories, and beliefs, and evidence, and social norms, and mathematical proofs, but "truth" is such an odd word to use. Twinset, can you explain more about this, please?