Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

RE and Humanities teachers help me out here please

87 replies

LadyGlencoraPalliser · 02/03/2009 19:38

I am trying to decide whether I should speak to DD's school about what she is learning in RE - or Philosophy and Ethics as it is laughably called.
The topic they have been covering for the past half-term is called 'Does God exist'. She doesn't get much homework so it wasn't until she brought her class exercise book home at the weekend that I saw what she had actually been doing for the past few weeks.
Basically, they have been investigating 'evidence for the existence of god'. They have learned that there are different types of truth including 'scientific truth, historical truth, moral truth and religious truth.'
They have been told that the fact that there is life after death is a religious truth, rather than a belief.
They have been asked to discuss arguments for but not against intelligent design and for but not against the cosmological arguments for the existence of god.
They do not appear to have discussed in any way the question 'Does God Exist' which was supposed to be the subject of their enquiry. Rather they have focused solely on 'Why God Exists'.
Is this the normal way to teach this subject? I asked DD why she hadn't put forward any counterarguments and she said they weren't allowed to. I am very, very uncomfortable with theology masquerading as philosophy in this way but I would like to get my facts straight about how the subject is normally taught.

OP posts:
Original poster
LadyGlencoraPalliser · 02/03/2009 21:21

I am a history student Habibu, so I get where you are coming from on the historical truth angle - but at least 'historical truths' or generally accepted historical beliefs can be tested against evidence from various sources.
What I mind is the fundamental fecking intellectual dishonesty of presenting a bunch of 11/12 year olds with a list of 'truths' and including 'religious truth' as if it were some unproblematic category of knowledge like scientific truth. Leaving the concept of 'truth' out altogether and diffrentiating between fact, theory and belief would have been a heck of a lot more helpful.

OP posts:
GrimmaTheNome · 02/03/2009 21:17

Its not exactly a debate if the pupils aren't allowed to put forward counter-arguments, is it though? Sounds more like a teacher with no respect for truth is trying to quash thought and impose his/her own assertions.

Exceptionally dodgy - somewhat akin to 'Intelligent Design' masquerading as science. You're right, its intellectal dishonesty.

Original poster
LadyGlencoraPalliser · 02/03/2009 21:15

I wouldn't mind it so much as a starting point for debate Janeite, but I specifically asked DD, my mouth hanging open in horror as I read what she had written, why she had only put one side of the debate, and she told me that they weren't allowed to put the other side.

OP posts:
Habbibu · 02/03/2009 21:15

Well, many historical "facts" are based on records, and you have to have faith in the accuracy/trustworthiness/sanity of those doing the recording, and the vagaries of survival of records to say something is a fact. Sometimes the evidence is so good, and from so many sources, that you can be pretty happy that it is accurate, but I still reckon that pretty happy is as good as it gets. Same with science, mostly.

And I don't like the distinction between a religious truth and a belief - it gives an impression that it's not open to interpretation/personal belief.

janeite · 02/03/2009 21:10

But I say that as a teacher of Literature, where pretty much everything is open to debate!

janeite · 02/03/2009 21:10

Yes - but as a way of getting youngsters thinking (if that is what they are using it for) it's a nice way to open a debate I guess.

Habbibu · 02/03/2009 21:09

But that's true of all the truths - they are - even many scientific ones - open to interpretation. You could say that the only absolute truth is mathematical. which they missed out!

janeite · 02/03/2009 21:09

True Habibu - what exactly would a "historical truth" consist of: would it be along the lines of "Babylon was the capital of - from - BC" or whatever? ie: pretty indisputable historical facts?

janeite · 02/03/2009 21:07

Where's Twinset when you need her?!

I'm not an RE teacher but I would be very cross if one of my dds came home saying she'd done this unless it was dressed up in the "Christians believe" line and they were also discussing other faiths at some point.

Although I quite like the breaking down into "scientific truth, historical truth, moral truth and religious truth" I think it's important for them to understand that a "religious truth" is only a truth in so far as a certain religion says it is, rather than necessarily a truth which everyone must abide by.

Habbibu · 02/03/2009 21:03

That all sounds very dodgy, tbh. My background is history-ish, and dh is a historian - think he'd quail at "historical truth" never mind the more dodgy theology. I wonder if that's true about the philosophy thing? V. dodgy if so...

Original poster
LadyGlencoraPalliser · 02/03/2009 21:00

No not a faith school, a bog-standard comprehensive. It's the intellectual dishonesty I object to. I'd almost mind less if they just admitted: this is RE and we are teaching them Christian beliefs - end of. I mentioned it to another parent and she said that they call it Philosphy and Ethics because you have a legal right to withdraw your child from RE class but not from Philosophy.

OP posts:
Habbibu · 02/03/2009 19:42

Surely anything which calls for analysis of only one side of a debate is pretty rubbishy teaching anyway? You wouldn't get too far in history that way. Sounds really odd and not good at all - is it a faith school?