To think RE is a big waste of time

[Himalaya]

I don't mean that kids shouldn't come out of school with a basic knowledge of the world's religions and some skills in philosophy and critical thinking, but to have to take RE classes every week for 12+ years seems like overkill, and a waste of their time.

They certainly don't come out at the end of it with twelve years worth of knowledge, so you have to wonder what is the point. The only point seems to me to be to instill in them strongly the idea that religions deserve a special kind of RESPECT.

Most of the stuff in primary and early secondary is just mush content-wise (but with a heavy undertone of respect).

I think the facts on religion they need to know could be covered in a couple of modules of general studies, or under humanities at KS3 and KS4. It would free up time that could be used for critical thinking, philosophy, study skills, economics, public speaking, sport, creative writing etc....

Not the case at all, Himalaya. I'm not the finishing school type and don't agree with "skating over holes in logic". For example, it's inconsistent of atheists to expect religious people to provide any more evidence of God's existence than they can provide of his non-existence - and yet often, illogically, they do.

"I think what you were calling for was polite conversation - not digging too deep into assumptions, skating over holes in the logic and not pointing out when someone's beliefs are in contradiction with the evidence."

IMO, racism in the sense of colour or nationality is def better than it was. But there is still a huge amount of intolerance of people on the basis of their religion. And its not from not knowing about the religion as its been taught in schools for quite a while now. The argument has always been that racism is caused by ignorance, but people arent quite so ignorant anymore although some think they know more than they do

CB - I am not sure what you mean by 'exists for many people' means in the context of the question of whether god exists in reality, which is what we were talking about (the first one is a trivial question).

We've gone over the respect thing. respect for people and respect for ideas are two different things.

Why is it ok to skip right over questions of religious truth (or plausibility) straight to religious value judgements? It begs a lot of questions. In the end it makes religious discussions no more robust than 'i like chocolate ice cream, you like vanilla but we respect each others choices'.

I agree that children should learn about world religions, but since there is no sound basis to judge or analyse them over 12 years within a religious framework, they should just spend say 2 years in early secondary learning the facts about religious practices,holy books etc..and then go on to do philosophy (including the god question, which as you have said really has nothing much to do with the study of religion) as a sepperate subject.

Using symbols children understand like Bob and Santa hats to illustrate and investigate philosophical concepts seems a perfectly sound approach. What moral lessons are they supposed to take from Adam and Eve, the flood, Abraham and Isaac and the story of Job?

So does anyone agree with my point of 12:42:03, that a balanced education about religion at school can help to counter more extreme or blinkered views that some may encounter?

CB, because the wearing of elements of costume that are well known to the child are useful for exploring concepts of identity. It is clearly linked to theory of mind, which is very important in children of that age from a psychological perspective.

Theory of mind is obviously extremely important when putting across moral concepts to very young children. All teachers and parents will be aware of developing that because of course babies aren't born with it; it is something that develops over time.

Telling a 3 year old a story, be it religious or otherwise, is not going to be more difficult from that perspective, rather in the same way that young children watching tv is. In order to understand that other people are separate from you and do not know what you know, it is extremely helpful to actually have the other person there, telling you that. You get that when a group of children tell each other who they are and who they think each other are. Is Matilda Matilda? Is Matilda Bob the Builder in that hat? Is Matilda Bob the Builder with a badge on? What would you call Matilda, Joe? Matilda, who do you think you are?

These build theory of mind. When you read a story, or watch television, or talk to God, there isn't anyone there who is going to tell you that they don't know what you think about them, because they are either fictional in a book or all knowing.

I'm not sure why I went into that at such length; it seems pretty obvious. There is also the issue that working on theory of mind allows early diagnosis of children with an ASD. There isn't a need to diagnose children who don't have a relationship with God.

Sorry, that should have read that telling a story is going to be more difficult.

Slug I agree

But until recently my uni taught Humanism until the Lecturers dried up; and I know another one teaching Paganism so that option is there.

Absolutely Atheism, Humanism, etc should be covered; choice of religions should be based on the education of the teacher I think.

'But seeing as the pro RE posters were the first ones to throw the word 'ignorant' around it shows that RE hasn't given you the skills to debate intelligently.

It is an opinion that differs from yours. Can you deal with it? Can you tolerate it?
'

Key skill: not generalising, one mentioned earlier on. As someone who has always tried to post respectfully, I don't think my pro-RE (technically pro-PRS) status means I have to answer for those who do not.

For example, it's inconsistent of atheists to expect religious people to provide any more evidence of God's existence than they can provide of his non-existence

Not at all. Its the old Russells teapot thing.

slug - you pinpoint a very real danger.

I think that, historically, ethics were taught in RS classes in British schools, much as grammar was taught in Latin classes.

That does not mean that either RS or Latin were the optimum medium for broaching the skills of ethics or grammar, nor that people who had no religious education nor knowledge of Latin were necessarily ignorant of ethics or grammar.

Milly- 'There is also the issue that working on theory of mind allows early diagnosis of children with an ASD. '

Not sure how true that will be with new DSM criteria, although can absolutely see your POV (Grad in PRS, almost MA in ASD LOL- you are talking my langauge a thousand times over now!)

PP, it isn't inconsistent of atheists to say that they do not have to prove God's nonexistence.

It is rather like if you walk into a room and tell me a lion is about to come through my door in Yorkshire and charge at me. I'm not under any obligation to prove you wrong, because I haven't made up the scenario in the first place. The onus is on you to justify the plausibility of the scenario.

SVC, what are the changes going to be? I'm not going to dispute what you say, as I know little about ASD. I'm just interested. Obviously I'm moving a bit off topic though!

GrimmaTheNome, MillyR you got there before me.

Its a sign of the failure of RE that people drag this old chestnut out quite so often...

You can't prove Ateheism: inability to prove a negative and all that.

But equally I don't think having religion is about prrof and that's hard to explain to atheists.

Faith is about a sense of acceptance without evidence; many will describe it as a feeling of knowing. I think it is as unproveable as the absence tbh- you either have or don;t.

And as long as you do not use either to disadvanatge people that's fine; equally, both can be used to motivate improvement in people's lives.

I don't need proof of anyone else's core belief system. I am quite happy to co-exist happily with a great many. If I see injustice then my focus is that not the religious belief.

'Every prophet and saint has a way, But all lead to God. All ways are really one' (Rumi)

For me, that absolutely includes Atheists and also, for me God means essential humanity- love, the energy that we all sahre (very Brahamanic I know). Not a great manlike being: humanity.

Of course that's irrelevant to teaching; chances are the teaching I will end up doing will be with ASD kids needing a bit extra, if all goes to plan (but have to get RE PGCE first because I can't do a PGCE in SEN... why is that ? anyway...) But I do think that shows that religion doesn't have to be about promoting one way, one absolute: it CAN be about acceptance of otehr pathways, and if Rumi managed to get that in the 9th centure it's a shame more people haven't managed to follow suit, because in many ways it's the very definition of tolerance isn;t it? Acceptance.

And don;t worry, off for school run now, will take my blathering with me!

MillyR proposed changes at thisb stage

OK if I CAT you a link?

Yes, thanks SVC.

It puts a lot of other things into perspective too. Historical figures, other civilisations and so on. For thousands of years many human decisions have had religion of one sort or another behind them, whether it be Henry's fight with the catholic church - leading to the dissolution of the monasteries and the CofE - or why the ancient Egyptians moved their capital city from one place to another (and then back again), to why Pakistan was formed etc etc etc.

Scram - maybe it was a x post, but MillyR and Grimma both gave good illustrations of why prooving a negative is a red herring. I bet you could make up and disproove 10 negatives just sitting in your kitchen. Sure you can't disprove there is an invisable unicorn that makes no sound, does no poos and eats no leaves in you garden, but you can't know antything at all about it and neither can anyone else, and you wouldn't take any moral pronouncements based on the will of the unicorn seriously.

Himalaya you read half my post! You can't prove faith- I am not talking about the existence of any God, but faith- and I don;t think being able to not prove the existence of God is the smae thing at all tbh.

Anyway the whole thing about invisible unicorns- yep, not anyone elses's job to prove it exists BUT nobody's to tell teh beeliver what to believe either. If someone has a faith no amount of proving or disproving will work: we can dismiss it as bunkum and ignore it which emans we will potentially lose everything positive that thought system and person has to offer- or we can just accept (within the boundaries already outlined about justice etc)that person beieves X and Y, and Z is a follow on of that... and then just co-exist, share and learn as with any other person.

It's one part of a person's make up: how much it influences the opther parts vcaries hugely but understanding and having knowledge of that makes everything flow so much mroe easily. It also emans we arm the kids with the ability to criticise the stuff that might not be so good: so looking at feminist criticisms of Christianity for example, or duty in Hinduism. And it decent study also shows eligion up for what it is- only as good as it's adherent: slavery for example: plenty of faith involved in both it's inception and abolition.

But obviously we won't ever agree. Never mind, God will forgive you (any God I could believe in would definitely have a SOH!)

'but you can't know antything at all about it and neither can anyone else'

That's it isn't it?

The faithful do believe they know the unicorn because the unicorn has showed itself to them.

The faithful do believe they know the unicorn because the unicorn has showed itself to them.

did you really mean to say that? (nearest thing to teapot)

Religion and religious figures are historically documented. Why are there no historical documents denying anything that is recorded in the gospels about the life of Jesus and what he did?

It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that God can do things which we might not normally consider "possible" and which were documented by independent writers and not once challenged as being historical truths. The onus is on atheists to come up with some sort of evidence that these things didn't happen.

Contrast this with unicorns and fairies. I think you'll find there are no historical records about them...

Yes Grimma

You know, God reveals himself and all that. I am missing point of your grin sorry, right over my head!

Not unusual, somewhat sadly.

If someone believes God has revealed himself to them or whatever then you annot prove otherwise; you can however accept it and move on with a bit of uderstanding and hopefully informed acceptance.

you don;t ahve to agree or even like, of course.

Pepsi, there are lots of historical documents that refer to fairies and unicorns. There are many things in the gospels that are contradicted by other sources on Roman rule of Palestine. The issue of a historical man called Jesus is a separate issue to the incarnation anyway.

I agree with SVC anyway. Many people have had supernatural experiences and have seen visions of, and have talked to, God, the Virgin Mary, ghosts, demons and so on. Some people who have these experiences consider them to fit into a religious account and so are religious. That is absolutely fine and their personal business.

It seems to me to be two different issues. Atheists are not under any obligation to prove their is no God, but neither do they need to convince other people to stop believing in the supernatural.

The other issue is the issue of morality. Having a supernatural belief isn't a justification for having a morality solely based on religious texts, but I don't believe that many religious people do base their morality on those texts alone, so it isn't an issue that arises a great deal.

"Why are there no historical documents denying anything that is recorded in the gospels about the life of Jesus and what he did?"

Because the Gospels were written between 100 and 300 years after the death of Jesus. Why write down anything contradictory when you have already decided the guy was god?