´óÏó´«Ã½

The retiring Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright, speaking to James Naughtie:

It occurred to me that the biggest ethics story on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ at the moment hasn't received any coverage here. Are you planning to include any discussion on the Pakistan spot-fixing allegations and what an ethical approach to the rest of Pakistan's tour of England might look like? Could be a refreshing change form the usual topics.

The next story is rather more mainstream for the blog:

The argument goes along these lines:
More people are taking GCSE Religious Studies.
They do this because it is easy.
The CoE is manipulating the truth by using the increase in numbers as a justification to call for more funding for RS teaching.
The church should be teaching RS, not schools.

The reality of the situation however is that Chemistry, Physics, Biology and Spanish all have better results and all three of the sciences have seen larger increases in numbers. Geography, History, French and German all have fairly comparable results. You can find the results on .

The NSS claims 'These young people aren’t daft. They know that they can boost their exam results with hardly any effort by including Religious Studies.' but doesn't back it up with reference to any result tables and derides the short course by mockingly referring to a third-party site which highlights that it has no coursework component, rather than by linking to the CCEA course specification or looking at the requirements for the full course. In fact at no point does the NSS link to or quote from any academic sites to justify their claims. Nor do they make a corresponding call for schools to stop teaching Physics, Chemistry and Biology, despite all three subjects have better results and more a larger increase in uptake.

But, Jonathan, don't you know, the reason that it's so easy to score an A* in Religious Studies is because of the little pixie which appears on the desk and whispers all the correct answers in your ear.

And, behold, there was A star on my paper.

Jonathan,

One of the main reasons so many do Religious Studies GCSE is that the subject is compulsory so they might as well do the exam and get the extra grade. If it was not compulsory to study RS it would be interesting to see how many would freely chose it for GCSE.

Why would they call to stop teaching factual courses that are of some use, they are just trying to clear out the fairy tales.

Peter I have been reading Bishop Wright's dialogue with Marcus Borg on the historical Jesus. This has been the first time I have ever really read any evangelical theology and, surprise surprise, it's not too appaling so far! Wright's ideas are interesting and I am looking forward to finishing the exchange. I don't think it will make an evangelical of me but it certainly has increased my understanding and sufficently whetted my appetite that I might even go along to hear Michael Green who, I hear, is due to speak at the Church of the Resurrection towards the end of October.

@Dave (4)

You may be entirely correct about people doing the exam because the course is compulsory. If you are, it only helps my point that the NSS was throwing out wild assertions with no evidence.

Parrhasios

You mentioned a few weeks back that you were reading the the Wright/Borg dialogue and asked me if I was aware of it, I should have replied, but time and holidays and laziness got the better of me. I didn't actually know that this book existed, but perhaps now that I do, I should read it. I do rather like what Wright has to say and I suppose that if there is the slightest possibility that one is going to be appalled by evangelical theology (and I am fully aware of the possibility!), the best way to avoid being appalled is to read Wright!

Jonathan (#6)

..the NSS was throwing out wild assertions with no evidence

Unlike religious faiths, whose assertions are backed up by mountains of reliable evidence. Hmmm?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

I personally think that religious education is good, ignorance is a solid basis for hatred and teaching the basics of all religions might help eliminate some of the bigotry towards religions. However, it needs to be fair to all major religions in that area (and most denominations), presented in a neutral manner (to prevent it from becoming preaching) and it absolutely does not need to be compulsory. It should also be part of a wider subject on morals and ethics as a whole, pointed out that religion does not hold a monopoly on such things.

Will,

, when discussing the ethics of language in the Ground Zero Mosque debate, it might be a good idea to remember that a) it isn't a mosque, and b) it isn't at Ground Zero.

Jonathan - thanks for the link to the NSS article.

I couldn't help noticing a few dubious statements by the NSS, which demand a response. I am not sure how much I am allowed to quote from the article, so I will just refer to the arguments the NSS are putting forward.

One of their arguments is that there is no indication that young people are showing any willingness to go to church, and this is presented as evidence that they are not interested in religious issues. This is a poor response to the C of E claim (which, admittedly, itself may be difficult to substantiate), given that church attendance is no indicator of interest in "a world view which includes more than simply the material". Frankly, such a claim is ludicrous, as if the moment a young person starts to wonder whether there is more to reality than simply matter and energy, he has a moral and logical duty to trot along to church!

Terry Sanderson claims that we need to invest in teachers who will equip children for 'real life'.

How does Mr Sanderson define 'real life'? And having defined it, what evidence does he present to support his definition? Are morals part of 'real life'? Is a sense of ultimate purpose allowed to be part of 'real life'? Are non-empirical realities, such as reason and consciousness allowed to be part of 'real life'? These are all philosophical questions: just the sort of questions which children should be discussing on a course concerned with 'the bigger issues', which include a discussion of different belief systems.

Sanderson makes a similar point about investing in 'imparting real knowledge and skills'.

Ah, so now Mr Sanderson is trying his hand at epistemology! He refers to the concept of 'real knowledge'. Funny, but I thought epistemology was a philosophical subject - and therefore just the sort of topic which should be discussed in a course on world views and belief systems.

Of course we can guess where Mr Sanderson is coming from. He assumes that his materialistic world view is self-evidently true (being just a tad philosophically uninformed, as he is), and he wants to preach his philosophy to children and prevent them from considering other ways of interpreting reality. One assumes that his form of metaphysics positively oozes out of bubbling test tubes and is displayed in the heavens for all to see through a telescope. Clearly he could have done with an education in philosophy, as he clearly doesn't 'get it'.

Talking about an exclusive concentration on a scientific education... let's suppose young people grow up having studied nothing but science. Presumably science will have equipped them for 'real life'. OK, so let's see how such people will perform in 'real life'. Some of them are, for example, geniuses at making explosives, thanks to their scientific education. Wonderful. But ... there's a problem. Exactly what are these people supposed to do with those explosives? What purpose do these explosives have? When would it be right to use them? When would it be wrong to use them?

In other words, a purely scientific education is utterly and totally useless for life in the 'real world'. Alongside science there needs to be an understanding of moral and ethical issues, and these, like it or not, are informed by one's view of reality. Mr Sanderson talks about 'skills', but skills are useless without a reason to use them.

I am not at all suggesting that RE - or whatever we want to call it - should focus exclusively on Christianity, but to deprive children of the opportunity to think about different belief systems, ethical issues and also philosophical concepts is to render them ill equipped to face the real world, which, of course, includes the reality of our multi-cultural society (and how is Mr Sanderson going to obliterate that, I wonder?).

Natman: "Unlike religious faiths, whose assertions are backed up by mountains of reliable evidence. Hmmm?"

Absolutely correct. Mountains of design and complexity. I accept this as evidence. Care to provide proof that I am not permitted to accept this as evidence? I look forward to your 'irrefutable theorem' (which has to be completely empirical, otherwise it doesn't count within your world view).

LSV,

Are we onto the 'prove a negative' thing again? You can believe in whatever you want; mountains of design and complexity are not evidence for the existance of a god, despite your fervent wish otherwise. I'm even skeptical that there's evidence of any kind of design at all, when you consider how many flaws there are in the human body alone.

We covered a lot of this in another thread; even if it's not perfectly empircal, as you insist, it doesn't prove nor disprove anything.

I think it's fair to say that there is lots of evidence that people are religious and this is worthy of study.

If the issue is relevance, far more people in the world are involved in religion than say music or art or Italian or higher level maths. So in simple objective terms it's a phenomenon that deserves study.

The main issue is not that religion is studied, but that faith is not promoted.

I have no problem with religious studies which study the basis for religion and what the major religions are (and their histories) as long as it is not compulsory and does not raise one faith above another or make truth claims which are not verifiable.

You can study Italian without being told that Italy is the only true country and you must become Italian or suffer endless torment and American style Pizza for eternity, so you can be taught about religion without the same pressure to believe.

If people chose to believe they are free to and church is the place for learning within a faith.

It's perfectly reasonable for people to learn about their own religions in schools of their chosing in a free society. The alternative vision is of all schools advancing the agenda of the National Secular Society whose atheistic creed is certainly not verifiable.

Perhaps schools should teach children about sport but not allow them to participate.

mccamleyc (#14)

So my taxes should be used to fund the preaching of religion in schools?

If a child wants to learn about their -parents- religion (why is there this presumption that a child is automatically the religion of their parent, we don't do it for political parties), then church is the place for it. If they want a brief overview of all the religions in the world, and their legacy, both good and bad, then school is the place.

What about classes where there is a variety of religious origins present? Which religion is 'theirs'? Which one do you teach them?

The teaching of religious topics in schools should be dealt with in the same way we teach history and geography; neutrally, impartially and (after a certain point) voluntarily.

You don't get to pick out the things you don't like your taxes being used for. Your taxes pay for nuclear submarines, the invasion of Iraq, training days in political correctness for civil servants, support grants for lesbian support groups, TVs for convicted rapists, hip replacements for old ladies who never drank milk, abortions, contraception, the royal family swanning around, Anglican bishops sitting in the House of Lords, State visits, Tony Blair's security. Do I need to go on to make the point? Christians pay taxes and some of their money - lots of it - goes to things they don't like. Same is true of atheists and secularists. Them's the breaks.

Since I favour denominational teaching the answer to which religion is theirs is obvious. The GCSE, A-level, Leaving Cert, Junior Cert religious courses are all non catechetical so what's the problem?

Good luck with teaching history and geography in a neutral and impartial way. Will there be a section on The British Isles including the history of Londonderry?

Dave (@ 13) -

"You can study Italian without being told that Italy is the only true country and you must become Italian or suffer endless torment and American style Pizza for eternity, so you can be taught about religion without the same pressure to believe."

Am I missing something here? Do I take it that RE teachers threaten their pupils with eternal hell, if they fail to agree with the tenets of the particular religion being discussed on the course?

This is news to me. I must remember to ask my children about this.

"...or make truth claims which are not verifiable."

Look, Dave, we could turn this thread into a long discussion about the nature of 'truth' and the different methods of verification (and how we prove the validity of each of them). I'm very willing to discuss the theme of epistemology again, but I think I have made my point elsewhere. The truth claims of philosophical materialism are not verifiable according to its own rules of empiricism, so there is a 'faith' element to that philosophy as there is with any other world view. Therefore if 'religion' (i.e. viewpoints that affirm that there is more to reality than simply matter and energy) is not to be taught in school, then neither should the dogmatic claims undergirding atheism.

Concerning the NSS: I don't know what Terry Sanderson's issue is really (well I do actually - it's fundamentalist bigotry). If religion is not allowed to be taught as a subject at school, then we have to sacrifice the following:

1. The study of different cultures.

2. The study of the history of ideas.

3. The study of historical events.

4. The study of the justification for different ethical ideas.

5. The study of a great deal of literature.

I could go on...

He talks about 'the real world'. Well, if he's living in the 'real world', then 'reality' must be an extremely cramped, tedious and desolate place.

Mcc, your big long list of things that christians may not like has nothing to do with wasting money indoctrinating children into one faith.

If religion is so strong, why do all kids have to suffer it through RS, assembly prayers and a so called christian ethos in many schools. If you want to teach faith then do so in churches not schools.

As far as I can see the only reason for Faith schools is to perpetrate a religion by indoctrinating kids when they are most impressionable and ensuring that they will fill the coffers for the rest of their lives. Taxpayers money being used to fill churches banks.

If you are so sure of your beliefs why not wait until people are old enough, and have studied enough, to make an informed choice about their religion or lack of it.

mccamleyc (#16),

So some of my taxes goes on things I don't like. Fair enough, but I can use my vote to alter things like you've described. But to use it to preach religion is another thing. Who decided which is the 'true' religion, and who decides whose version of that 'true' religion is the right one? I'd be very, very suprised if even two Christians on here can agree on even general details about their faith.

You've still not answered as to why we should preach the religion of the parent to the child. When teaching politics, we don't discriminate according to the choices of the parent, so why religion?

On the whole, history and geography are taught neutrally, there are a number of controversial issues, but you'll find that in most cases, the evidence is put across from a variety of sources, something religion cannot do if preached.

Natman: post 11 you mention flaws in the human body. The human body is beautifully designed and speaks more truth than the words that come out of our mouths! In fact, the body never lies. Thus, it is not the body that is at fault but what we do with it, what we put into it (not just food and drink but thoughts and emotions) and how we treat it that result in the perceived 'flaws' you mention.

Re Doctors and end of life care: In the UK doctors/medical students are not given any or very little training in spirituality or how to take a spiritual history. Some say this is the job of the chaplains alone and doctors should keep out. In the USA the situation is very different - with the majority of USA medical schools providing some form of training in spiritual history taking and spirituality - where spirituality is very broadly defined and certainly not restricted to religion but tends towards that which gives meaning, purpose, connection, and value in life. In this context - people who consider themselves atheist have a 'spirituality' - which could be music, art, family etc.
Perhaps there should be room in the curriculum for medical students to be trained in taking a spiritual history, to learn about the associations between spirituality and health, to increase awareness of their own spirituality and how that might influence their decision making and to increase awareness regarding other people's spirituality and how that might influence patients decision making processes esp at critical times eg end of life.

@Will 20

So I suppose it should be the "Quite close to Ground Zero Community Centre that will contain a mosque (and a memorial to the 9/11 victims)" debate, then.

Eunice (#21),

A short list (and by no means a comprehensive one) of the inherant flaws within the human body:

- Wisdom teeth are painful and don't fit in our mouths. They did, a long time ago, but now they don't.
- The appendix is a pointless organ within humans, that at some point in the past assisted in the digestion of cellulose (which we can't now digest), that has a tendancy to explode, showering our insides with toxic blood poisoning and killing people without warning.
- Food and air down the same hole has resulted in thousands, if not millions of deaths over the years. A simple fix of two seperate entries would've solved this issue.
- The nerves that send the signals from our eyes to our brain cross in front of the retina. Not only does this decrease the sensitivity of our eyes, it creates a blind spot. Were the nerves on the other side, like in squid, we wouldn't have this.
- The male testes grow originally inside the abdominal cavity, then descend during pregnancy. This leaves flaws in the abdominal muscle wall, leading to the relatively common development of hernias.

I'm sure the cDesign proponentists will attempt to claim these flaws have logical reasons, but the simple fact is that an omnipotent and omniscient god could have 'designed' these flaws away very easily. We certainly can.

@Dave (18)

You're taking a lot of objections related to religion and education, but the objection of the NSS was specifically to do with RSS teaching being too easy and irrelevant. The first part of that claim was unjustified and the second unjustifiable.

Teaching RS is not the same as indoctrinating children into the Christian faith, no more than studying the rise of Hitler in A-level History indoctrinates anyone into Naziism or studying the eruption of Mt Pinatubo for GCSE Geography compels anyone into becoming a volcanologist - can we agree on that?

Natman: things are not always what they appear to be - I still feel there is more 'right' with the body than wrong and that it is our misuse of it that leads to most problems with it. I have different views on who created what ....our soul is from God - the body I'm not so sure so perhaps God is not to blame for the perceived flaws you mention! Even so - it's still a pretty beautiful piece of work - esp if given the love and attention it deserves. Unfortunately, many of us (incl self) find it easier to abuse the body (with food, drink, etc) than to love it.

The part about the story regarding the Islamic Center in New York is the racism and hatred inherant in most of the involved parties.

The free speech and the freedom of religion is written within the United States consitution, no one has the right to endorse or deny anyone on the grounds of their religion, and the US has quite rightly been proud of its tolerance to all newcomers (until recently anyway).

Those people protesting against the new use for this building are purely bigoted and being very unconstitutional whilst they're at it. Equating all Muslims with terrorists is in the same league as equating all Catholics with child abuse. PZ Meyers put it very well in that they can build a mosque there if they want, so long as he gets to stand, point and laugh at them with just as much freedom.

America would like to think it's thrown off its racist underbelly, but the shocking number of Americans who think Barack Obama is a Muslim, simply due to the colour of his skin and his unusual name (around 12% nationally, over 30% of republicans) proves that some people, in what is rapidly becoming a Christian Iran, are incapable of looking beyond their own racist mindset.

Of course Barack Hussein Obama isn't a muslim. He spent twenty years attending the racist black liberation church of Jeremiah Wright before dropping him when it no longer suited and he hasn't been back to church regularly since. Like most liberal secularist commies he's an atheist.

Dave I thought my point about taxes could not have been clearer - clearly I was wrong.

I never ever said religion is "strong". Of course it has to be taught - we don't pass it on by osmosis. And where do we teach? Schools. But I do believe in freedom and choice and that's why I believe in denominational school. Same reason I believe in supporting different sports and private farmers rather than collective Stalinist plantations.

>>>"why not wait until people are old enough, and have studied enough, to make an informed choice about their religion or lack of it."

How can they study enough if you do want them to study religion?

Natman - you can use your vote to do away with tax funded faith schools if you can persuade enough people.

Parents have to teach their children something about life. Secularist always have this weird notion that not teaching their children about God is being neutral - it's not, it's indoctrinating them in secularism.

Mcc,

"...it's not, it's indoctrinating them in secularism"

You cannot indoctrinate secularism simply by not indoctrinating a faith. If you mean that I am advocating schools teach that religions are all false, then you have me wrong. I am merely saying that bringing all kids up on tripe like 'Jesus wants me for a sunbeam' and that if I am good I will go to heaven to be with my dead family or hell if I do not follow all these antiquated rules is wrong. It is even more wrong when people of faith cannot even agree which is the true faith even within their own grouping (how many protestant denominations are there ?)

I did not say they should not study religion, I think they should, but in a neutral environment which means no assumption that one faith or any is true.

Schools should be neutral.

What other parental values would you want schools to segregate over, denominations you have mentioned, what about race or class or income bracket or maybe sexuality, should parents who believe black/white working class/poor or gay kids are not equal be able to get government funding to run white/black/upper class/rich or straight schools.

@Will 27

Well, yes, but the point is that to use the emotionally charged, not quite true but not quite false term, "Ground Zero Mosque" when referring to the debate automatically lets one side of the discussion set the agenda.

Like most liberal secularist commies he's an atheist.

I think I'll treasure that line until the day I die.

Grokesx - you are very kind, and just at the right time too, as someone seeing a photograph of me meeting the then Pope almost twenty years ago just said "you look like Chris de Burgh". Good grief.

Dave - I agree you can try and teach about various religions in a neutral way but the result tends to be religious indifference, which I suppose for you is a good thing. But it's also possible to teach "this is what we believe and this is what they believe" without being unpleasant about it and without denying the possibility of truth.

I would allow schools based on sex and religion. Sex because it works well in many cases, religion because it's a fundamental but freely chosen thing. Race no, but probably language yes, which may turn into race if you're not careful. "Sexuality" is a makey uppy category since everyone is fundamentally heterosexual. We have plenty of schools based on class/money. Not sure how to stop that - eleven plus used to help.

So it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate on the basis of gender and religion, but not race? That's an interesting theory, how do you propose to do this without getting yourself embroiled in complicated legal cases?

Religion is not fundamental, neither is it freely chosen, not if children are indoctrinated from an early age to believe the same myths that their parents do. If religion was fundamental, I'd expect to see christians being more, well, christian. Instead of the two-faced, hypocritical liars that the rest of humanity is (myself included!)

As for your comment that "everyone is fundamentally heterosexual", well, I'm not entirely sure you know what you're talking about. I'm sure that a lot of people who've been convinced of their sexual peferences since a very young age might disagree. It seems you think that sexuality is a choice, something psychological perhaps, that can be 'cured'? Hmmmmm?

@ McC

I think I should add that the reason I will treasure your line is that it encapsulates an infinity of stupid in eight short words. Genius.

Grokesx - I am a broken man - I thought you were being nice. But I do like "an infinity of stupid".

Complicated legal cases? Why? Many schools are denominational and many are single sex. Most legal systems accept this as perfectly normal without it being discriminatory.

Religious freedom is one of the the most fundamental human rights, identified and guaranteed by constitution, and internal legal instrument, whether UN, CoE or EU.

It's freely chosen when you're old enough to chose - ie. when you're an adult - same as most things in life.

"Fundamentally hetero" was thrown in to wind up but the underlying point is that heterosexuality is normative - anything else, whether freely chosen, caused by environment or something genetic - it's still a deviation from the norm. Not sure it can be cured - but people can be helped to live with it. I know a nice young psychiatrist who...

Emm, best not go there.

"Sexuality" is a makey uppy category since everyone is fundamentally heterosexual.

That's a pretty insulting statement on several levels.

heterosexuality is normative - anything else, whether freely chosen, caused by environment or something genetic - it's still a deviation from the norm

Heterosexuality is not normative, it may be the majority orientation but I have yet to see why everyone being heterosexual is required or desirable and so should be the ideal state to which we should all tend towards (which is my understanding of normative). Homosexuality is normal and natural and is not a deviation but simply part of the diverse spectrum of sexuality.

MCC - you say your comments were intended to wind up ......perhaps that's just a cover up having expressed what you really feel? Either way - doesn't do you any favours. I'm with Dave on this one ....homosexuality is normal. Not everyone is fundamentally heterosexual - to borrow a phrase from Helio, pure cabbage!

Being white is the majority within the UK, Mccamley, but just because it's the majority, doesn't make it the 'norm'. Your opinions betray your prejuctices quite well and no school should discriminate on any basis. It's more acceptable to divide classes according to ability or gender (as studies have shown that seperate genders work better), but any school should take any pupil.

Oh, and all schools should be secular. The fact the school receive taxpayers money to fund their own indoctrination is wrong on the deepest level.