RE and Humanities teachers help me out here please

[LadyGlencoraPalliser]

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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?

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I would ask to see the teaacher, and if I didn't get a satisfactory answer, I would ask to see the headteacher.

Imagine a Psychology teacher insisting that nobody put forward the genetic argument to the enquiry "What causes schizophrenia?", instead insisting that it IS caused by the environment, but nobody knows which environment, so let's discuss that.

I think this so called teacher is on fucking dodgy moral ground here, as it's usually the people responsible for mass atrocities who burble and foam about "Different sorts of truth".

I would be outraged if my dd was taught in this way (see my other thread somewhere about whether it's important what children are taught!)

But I would also check whether she hasn't misunderstood something - is she sure that they "weren't allowed" to put the counter arguments. Could it have been that they are doing "pro" this week and "anti" next week? (I realize I might be clutching at straws here!)

I hate the fact that RE is a subject at school at all - but that's another debate.

Yes - ridiculous that they're not allowed to look at the other side of the coin, especially given their key question.

Am just trying to find any positives in what seems to be a v negative situation (understatement!), as I passionately believe that good teachers (of any subject) SHOULD be encouraging debate and helping pupils develop ways to consider different viewpoints etc: used sensibly the "different truths" idea could support this.

Are you going to speak to the teacher? Is dd in Yr 7?

Seeker, DH and I were wondering that, but it looks like they have been working on this topic for several weeks now and no sign of any other side being put yet.
I can tell you my blood was boiling when I saw a beautifully written page of 'arguments for intelligent design' in my daughter's handwriting. Anyway, why would you discuss the pros in one lesson and leave the againsts for a couple of weeks? Doesn't make sense.

"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." Oh, absolutely - the religious truth - not belief - thing really bothers me.

Janeite - I don't know whether to speak to the teacher or to the head of humanities. I happen to know (small town) that the teacher is a very committed Christian. That shouldn't be an issue - I know lots of teachers who have no trouble separating their personal beliefs from their work, but in this case, I wonder.
Anyway I have expressed my feelings fairly volubly to DD so she has heard the other side now!

In that case, it may well be worth going directly to the Head of Faculty. That way you can see how the department usually approaches the topic and check out if this individual teacher is allowing a personal agenda to get in the way rather too much. If they ALL teach it like this, then there is even more cause for alarm!

I remember DD doing a very similar project at school a few years ago, but iirc they were definitely encouraged to look at both sides of the argument - surely anything else is a very bad preparation for exams/essay writing?

I'd be fuming.

How dare they do this!

You need to see the teacher/head asap, but I must warn you, I have had similar issues at times, and have never managed to get my point across fully. They always fobbed me off, and I just didn't want to make too much fuss.

Has anyone read a book called "The Abstinence Teacher" by Tom (Tim?) Perotta?

Sorry to hijack, glencora, but it's about religious/sex education of young teens, and I found it fascinating, if a bit depressing.

We are the last defenders of the Enlightenment!

I may be reading it wrongly but you seem to be saying that they have only covered 'religious truth' so far?

In which case they're not finding evidence for 'why god exists' but instead why religious people believe god exists.

And to follow on from that because religious people generally (they may only be covering Islam and Christianity) believe in life after death to them it is a religious truth (crap language but there you go) rather than a belief.

If they are just yr 7 and 8 then they will be covering it by teaching it from the viewpoint 'this is what religious people believe'.

There are millions of people in the world who have a religion and part of the teaching is to teach it as if it's 'ok' so that they genuinely address tolerance.

Also, are you quite sure you read that right and it was 'cosmological' rather than 'ontological' ?

When they get older and head towards gcse there are far more discussions about learning about other beliefs and discussing personal ones.

There is so much Islamophobia around that they are being quite careful with the curriculum to focus on tolerance and acceptance. Appreciate that you may not like that because of personal beliefs.

I teach RE, what year is your dd in. It sounds like the OCR Philosophy and Ethics course. Therefore it is called philosophy and ethics because that is the name of the course rather than to avoid withdrawal. If it is a short course I set homework about once a half term so as not to overload my students. I set optional homeworks that many of my students choose to do.

The teacher may have been trying to present different kind of truths in a watered down kind of way which is where the religous truth bit comes in.

Seeker I would love you to come and watch my RE lessons I am almost certain you would change your mind.

OP I would ask to see the head of department, even in a faith school this kind of teaching should not be happening.

I may occasionally say to a student only give the argument for, we will then pause to check they have understood and then give the opposite view. I would never ban opinions though.

I teach many of the above topics but always teach the criticisms of the arguments for the existence of God and allow them to give their own view.

Lauriefairy - I don't think I am mistaken, it has been very clearly set out. The topic for the previous term was what different faiths believe. They covered Islam, Hinduism and Judaism. This topic was clearly signposted as 'Does God Exist?'. As I said in my OP, they do not appear to have examined that question.
The thing about religious truth is that DD had written out a whole list of 'different kinds of truth' (copied down from the board she says) which included 'scientific truth' 'moral truth' 'historical truth' and 'religious truth'. You CANNOT present scientific truth and religious truth as equivalent concepts in that way. You could maybe frame the debate as that between scientific theory and religious belief and look at the different standards of proof that are required from each....
I don't see how you get from this that they are focusing on tolerance and acceptance. They appear to be focusing on unquestioning belief rather than on diversity.