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.

Twinset, I think it is the OCR course, at least they use OCR for the GCSE exam. So what you are saying is that the teacher is not teaching this course in the way it is intended to be taught? That's actually a relief. As far as I could see from the little information I had, the topics covered would support enquiry from different points of view, it is just that DD's class are not getting the opportunity to do that.

Oh, sorry, she is year seven.

Obviously I don't think scientific truth and religious truth are equivalent concepts but it seems like an ok explanation to an 11 year old to me.

I'm still misunderstanding - they are not covering scientific proof though - it may just have a way of differentiating the types of truth. They only seem to be covering religion at this point. They are not comparing what you describe (may be out of the scope of the topic or skill of the children at the moment).

They are focusing on unquestioning belief but crucially not theirs but what millions of others believe.

Also, they're only half way through the term, maybe they will cover the other types of truth later.

Twinset - I've read enough of your posts to know that if all RE teachers were like you I would be delighted for RE to be in the curriculum. Sadly, there aren't enough of you to go round!

Hear hear!

but most RE teachers I have worked with are like me if I am being honest. There are some crap ones as well though.

If she is in year 7 she is not doing short course RE as that is years 10 and 11, or 9 in some schools.

The lessons do sound similar to the unit I taught to my year 8s. I perhaps did spend longer explaining the cosmological, ontological arguments etc because the class tend to have the criticisms or can arrive at them quickly. The arguments are the core knowledge which can then be supported or critiqued by the pupils. But we certainly have time to give both points of view, I insist on it infact.

I have a lesson where we look at different kinds of truths and religious truth is one of them.

Before storming into school (did someone really say go straight to the Head?), have a look at this site:

The Standards Site

TBH, when I read the OP, I thought that her dd had put a concept map into her book - which is there to generate pupils' own ideas rather than a fully comprehensive argument for and against absolutely everything. A lot of teachers use concept maps (class and individual) at the beginning and end of topics so that pupils and Ofsted can see how much their ideas have changed/progressed over the course. Her exercise is not a textbook, and serves a different purpose.

How cool that the OP has rubbished this teacher to her DD now. I once had a pupil (different school) who refused to write in pen. When we got to the bottom of his problem, it turned out that he used to get disciplined at home for writing anything his parents didn't agree with, so he would change it before his books made it home, and change it back again before getting his books marked. Poor wee lad - he was in Year 7 and it was very stressful for him.

Message withdrawn

Actually, the more I think about this, the less happy I am with the use of the word "truth" at all in this context with children of this age.

There is only really mathematical truth, and some empirical scientific truth - the world is round, diamonds are hard, air is made of whatever it's made of.

I would be hugely uneasy with the concepts of "intelligent design" and "truth" being anywhere near each other, particularly in the lesson of a teacher who is a known committed Christian.

Scienceteacher - I have NOT as you put it 'rubbished' this teacher to DD. I find that a very offensive accusation. Nor am I planning to 'storm into school' alothough I may at some point if the opportunity arises want to have a discussion with the teacher or the head of department to clarify what their thinking is on this matter. I had certainly no intention of going to the head about it.
Let me make it quite clear if I have not already. My discussion with DD was in the context of one exercise in her book. She had been asked to put forward the arguments for intelligent design and she did so. I asked her whether she was also supposed to put forward the arguments against intelligent design. She said she wasn't allowed to. I did not at that point express my disagreement with her teacher or the methods of teaching but with the concept of intelligent design. It was clear that she had been inadvertantly or not left with the belief that it was not just what 'some Christians believe' but a perfectly valid way of explaining the origins of the universe. Do you honestly think I should have kept my mouth shut about that because teacher knows best?

Message withdrawn

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?

The truths thing is a concern - I would like to know how it was explained to them. I know it is only year seven, but I also know that in their history class for instance they started off the year by doing work on sources and reliability, and I assume concepts like evidence and proof have been introduced in their science lessons, so resorting to nebulous and ill-defined terminology in RE is odd, IMO. I will try to ask DD about it, without of course rubbishing her teacher in the process.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

Habbibu - have you had a look at the scheme of work Scienceteacher linked to further down? I think that is roughly what my DD's class is following. It would appear that there are two separate issues here.

1. The actual guidance in the unit itself is muddled and sketchy. This concept of different 'truths' is presented as something obvious and unproblematic which is very far from being the case. 2)Even the limited guidance given is being ignored/subverted in the way this unit is being presented by DD's teacher.

Sorry, xposted with you!

I am not sure that you can introduce the idea of truth theories to an 11 year old as something straightforward, unproblematic and not to be confused with factual truth.