Saturday, May 17, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Face to faith

by Guardian

Thanks to SPS for the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/17/religion.schools

Face to faith

It is vital that children are taught humanism's answers to life's 'ultimate questions', says Andrew Copson

The announcement that students on the OCR exam board's GCSE religious studies course will now study humanism is good news for balanced and objective education. But it is not just that the inclusion of humanism as a non-religious world-view is to be welcomed in itself; it is also significant in that the move - and the media's reaction to it - implies the acceptance of humanist beliefs and values as representing a coherent stance on life, with its own integrity. In 2004, by contrast, when the first government national framework for religious education (RE) recommended the study of humanism, there were headlines such as "Children to study atheism at school" (the Observer) and "Schools are told to teach atheism" (the Sun). This focus on one aspect of the humanist world-view (its view on the non-existence of gods), and the general portrayal of humanist beliefs as just a reaction to or critique of religion, obscures the richness and depth of both the humanist outlook as a modern life stance and of the millennia-old humanist tradition. Four years later, it is encouraging to see acceptance of the independent existence of the humanist outlook (by OCR at least - other exam boards have not yet been so inclusive).

The noun "humanism", as it is used by humanist organisations around the world today (and when it appears in RE), denotes a set of beliefs and values that characterise a world-view very widely shared by many people in modern Britain, and it is a mistake to define their beliefs purely negatively, by reference to what they don't believe in (gods, ghosts, life after death and so on). It is true of course that humanists do not believe in these things, but the reason they do not believe in them is much more important. Humanists believe that the reality we perceive around us - the world and universe that we make sense of through experience - is the only reality we can know and that there is no "second layer" to reality in which gods, demons or the "supernatural" can exist. It is this conviction that also leads humanists to believe that this life is the only life we have and that morality as we understand it is a natural product of our social instincts and not handed to humanity by some external divine source. Together with the belief that the aim of morality should be human welfare and fulfilment and that, in the absence of ultimate "purpose" to the universe, we make meaning for ourselves, both individually and in community, these convictions form the basics of the stance on life described as humanism today.

When we have a curriculum subject such as RE that aims to increase children's understanding of all the different beliefs and values people live by today and to allow all children to reflect on and find their own answers to the "ultimate questions" in life, it is easy to see why the inclusion of humanism is essential. So large a number of people share humanist beliefs that any discussion of the world-views of modern Britons would be incomplete were it not to include them, offering pupils from religious backgrounds the opportunity to learn about values and opinions they may not encounter elsewhere and pupils from non-religious backgrounds the opportunity to give a name to beliefs with which they are already familiar. OCR itself said the move was prompted by the fact that humanist beliefs are "held by increasing numbers of citizens".

Most of all, when it comes to those "ultimate questions" that form the backbone of RE syllabuses, such as beliefs about truth, authority, meaning, purpose, ethics and morality, it is vital that pupils learn about the answers given by humanists: that the basis of knowledge is reason, evidence and experience; that morality comes from our own selves as social beings; that happiness, meaning and fulfilment are our own to create through the joy of intellectual endeavour, of social action, of human relationships.

· Andrew Copson is director of education at the British Humanist Association (humanism.org.uk)

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Saturday, May 17, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 39 of 39 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #181424 by Henri Bergson on May 17, 2008 at 8:10 am

This is very welcoming. However, humanism, as a secular western moral outlook, derives from 2000 years of Christianity.

Real atheism should be taught to school children, an atheism which is amoral as it is atheist; as well as humanism.

For example; Nietzsche, Russell, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Hume.

Ideally, the GCSE named 'Religious Studies' should be renamed, 'Elementary Philosophy & Religion'.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

2. Comment #181427 by huzonfurst on May 17, 2008 at 8:17 am

"Humanism derives from Christianity" and "atheism is amoral" are two of the most asinine statements I've ever seen here!

Other Comments by huzonfurst

3. Comment #181429 by moderndaythomas on May 17, 2008 at 8:18 am

When we have a curriculum subject such as RE that aims to increase children's understanding of all the different beliefs and values people live by today and to allow all children to reflect on and find their own answers to the "ultimate questions" in life

I suppose that this can be looked at as a step in the right direction, but to look at "humanism" as another belief system can be damaging unless the lesson stresses the pursuit of the naturalistic, organic evidence that these beliefs are built up from.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

4. Comment #181431 by Enlightenme.. on May 17, 2008 at 8:21 am

"Real atheism should be taught to school children"

Huh?

Once the concept of Zero was discovered, it seems memetically child's play to anyone that hears it to grasp.
(even if I do have to think how many things there are between 10 and 20 sometimes!)

Atheism is not a subject, not a philosophy, worldview, nothing, it just raises questions.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

5. Comment #181434 by moderndaythomas on May 17, 2008 at 8:25 am

asinine

Good word usage! Going to start working that one in more.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

6. Comment #181446 by PJG on May 17, 2008 at 8:38 am

"Humanism derives from Christianity" and "atheism is amoral" are two of the most asinine statements I've ever seen here!

Sorry, but Henri is right.

Atheism is amoral. Amoral = Without morals.

That is not to say that an atheist is immoral - or amoral - but atheism is not a world view or a belief system, it is simply a lack of a belief in God. How can morals or morality be associated with that?

I HATE it when theists claim the moral high ground but at least let's be clear what the words "amoral" and "immoral" mean.

Other Comments by PJG

7. Comment #181459 by moderndaythomas on May 17, 2008 at 8:53 am

Atheism is amoral. Amoral = Without morals.

I understood the different meanings between the two myself, but the connotations wind up being the same when they are thrown around by the wrong person.
Henri, I'm sure, isn't that person, but somebody is.

I'm particularly sensitive to misinterpretation and what many here call quote mining. I don't know about anybody else but it makes me cringe sometimes.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

8. Comment #181465 by Enlightenme.. on May 17, 2008 at 9:03 am

The urgent problem that needs dealing with is it's been left far too long before overhauling the teaching of rights and responsibilities, and getting it properly detached from the big lie that it derived from the authority once purported.

We are currently raising a couple of generations of sort of 'Raskolnikov/brothers Karamazov' completely 'ungrounded' or 'unbounded' citizens, because this hasn't been addressed for 'pc' wishy-washy-liberal relativism reasons.

People will be susceptible to the Peter Hitchens utility arguments he used when debating his brother Karamazov.

In my schooldays, UK CofE, I do not recall being taught the first thing about philosophy.
Just a sort of embryonic subject called Humanities in the last two years in which the merits of the EEC, and that there were two parts of law, called criminal and civil form the bulk of my recollection.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

9. Comment #181471 by huzonfurst on May 17, 2008 at 9:14 am

I know what 'amoral' means, but I also know that probably a majority of people, especially religious people, equate it with 'immoral' - and I suspect that Henri is (consciously or not) exploiting this confusion.

Other Comments by huzonfurst

10. Comment #181473 by Henri Bergson on May 17, 2008 at 9:18 am

Huzonfurst,

What nonsense you write. You're implicitly admitting your first statement was wrong only to give another wrong statement.

Look up the words you use so as not to contradict yourself.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

11. Comment #181474 by m-man on May 17, 2008 at 9:18 am

"Real atheism should be taught to school children"

It has already begun, I had the pleasure of taking I believe, the first college class on Atheism this last semester,
and it was the best class i have ever taken.

Other Comments by m-man

12. Comment #181493 by PJG on May 17, 2008 at 9:52 am

I know what 'amoral' means, but I also know that probably a majority of people, especially religious people, equate it with 'immoral'

This is true, but that is all the more reason to make sure we underline the difference rather than appearing to equate the two ourselves.
Teach the controversy!!! :o)

Other Comments by PJG

13. Comment #181506 by HourglassMemory on May 17, 2008 at 10:24 am

"It is vital that children are taught humanism's answers to life's 'ultimate questions', says Andrew Copson."

It is also vital to tell children that the answers for these questions shouldn't rule one's life. Both religious answers or not. But of course, especially for religious answers.

If we ever get to know the answers for these things, it's going to be through science. And when we get that, if we get those answers, then....they'll just be a curious little fact about existence. We'll still have to go on with our daily lives and raise our children and have parties and entertaining discussions and do films and play instruments and learn more things about the universe.

The reason why religious people focus so much on the answers for these ultimate questions is because they've hammererd into their heads, or got it hammered into their heads by people who themselves got this hammered into their heads, that the answers actually concern us. That the answer is going to contain the word "Humans".
And, of course, they believe so because ... oh! others have said so!

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

14. Comment #181525 by Enlightenme.. on May 17, 2008 at 10:54 am

And..

If the response to my query(s)

Why?, why not?, oh but why?..
Hadn't been answered with a birds and the bees book, a copy of Aesops fables, and.. packing me off to Sunday school where they *were* willing to give instructions about what our body parts are for, then of course, I'd be in prison now.. probably.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

15. Comment #181565 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 17, 2008 at 1:40 pm

huzonfurst

I know what 'amoral' means, but I also know that probably a majority of people, especially religious people, equate it with 'immoral' - and I suspect that Henri is (consciously or not) exploiting this confusion.

Sounds like you're the ass. How patronising. Would it not have been easier to just admit that you had a minor lapse and misunderstood amoral to be immoral rather than concoct a post-hoc justification that is patently ridiculous.

EDIT:The majority of people know the difference between immoral and amoral, as it is elementary. I'm still trying to register the arrogance of the claim that you need to stop the poor unfortunate majority who cannot understand what amoral is. Just shows post-hoc justifications and rationalisations (most commonly manifest in religious scientists like Ken Miller, Jane Goodall and Francis Collins) drive people to the most uncomfortable, seemingly unsustainable, contortions.

EDITED DUE TO CLARIFICATION

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

16. Comment #181587 by DavidJGrossman on May 17, 2008 at 3:16 pm

"This is very welcoming. However, humanism, as a secular western moral outlook, derives from 2000 years of Christianity."

Really? Can you explain why you think this is true?

Perhaps some moral guidelines that are part of Christianity are also part of humanism but just there's no reason to think that humanists would not have derived the same moral guidelines on their own. Additionally, there is no reason to think that these ideas came from Christianity since many moral guidelines are shared by many religions.

- Dave

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

17. Comment #181592 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 17, 2008 at 3:32 pm

DavidJGrossman

Really? Can you explain why you think this is true?

Bergson regurgitates Nietzsche

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

18. Comment #181657 by Serdan on May 17, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Henri Bergson

However, humanism, as a secular western moral outlook, derives from 2000 years of Christianity.

How so? Christianity is neither secular nor moral.

Real atheism should be taught to school children [...]

What's not real about the atheism of humanism?

Besides, atheism is a non-subject.

Other Comments by Serdan

19. Comment #181667 by huzonfurst on May 17, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Excuse me, Common Toad, but the majority of people do *not* know the difference between amoral and immoral - what ivory tower have you been living in?

And it's "you're", dummy.

Other Comments by huzonfurst

20. Comment #181668 by huzonfurst on May 17, 2008 at 10:03 pm

Still waiting to hear how humanism derives from xtianity, Henri (but not holding my breath for it).

Other Comments by huzonfurst

21. Comment #181669 by mordacious1 on May 17, 2008 at 10:04 pm

Personally, I'm glad I'm not amoral, because that would mean being immoral wouldn't be any fun.

Other Comments by mordacious1

22. Comment #181673 by huzonfurst on May 17, 2008 at 10:22 pm

Common Toad, what is "patronizing" about expressing an opinion which my experience tells me is accurate?

And I'm not the same person as moderndaythomas, although after reading some of his posts I find him to be pretty thoughtful and congenial guy who doesn't have his nose stuck up in the air like you and Henri.

Other Comments by huzonfurst

23. Comment #181699 by PJG on May 18, 2008 at 1:45 am

huzonfurst et al - calm down! I'm sorry I even mentioned the difference between amoral and immoral! Shheeeesh!

Humanism doesn't "derive from Christianity" any more than it "derives" from Epicurean philosophy - maybe it derives from both - what does it matter? Henri wasn't wrong - just maybe not 100% right. Now we don't mind that here do we? :o)

But atheism IS amoral - that is correct - and I think huzonfurst now agrees. No need to get knickers in a twist over it.

Other Comments by PJG

24. Comment #181707 by irate_atheist on May 18, 2008 at 3:00 am

1. Comment #181424 by Henri Bergson -

More imbecilic ramblings, I see.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

25. Comment #181730 by phil rimmer on May 18, 2008 at 4:57 am

This is very welcoming. However, humanism, as a secular western moral outlook, derives from 2000 years of Christianity.

Real atheism should be taught to school children, an atheism which is amoral as it is atheist; as well as humanism.

This is substantially correct, if a little compressed. Humanism, is a mongrel and in its roots can trace a line back through the renaissance, through Islam to axial age Greek thought but also out sideways a long way. Latterly, through the Enlightenment, though ideas of atheism were starting to be philosophically justifiable, it was mainly through dissenting religious groups that an enhanced moral "philosophy" was being developed and applied to peoples daily lives. (I think people often have a false idea of how cultural ideas spread. That positions of atheism could then be justified is meaningless to 99.9% of the population. Hume, or more pertinently, the writings of Solon etc. are substantially irrelevant at this time.) This enhanced moral "philosophy" derives as much from the junking of irrational Christian Dogma as by the realization that we have a natural and innate moral capacity and that by and large it is a capacity that all share. The "Inner Light" of the Quakers, though still God Given, was personal and guiding and more to be trusted than any scripture. By the mid nineteenth century there were as many non-conformist Christians as a Anglicans. The myriad dissenting groups offered choice in reflecting your moral position, quite as much as your views on the niceties of the Trinity.

It also shouldn't be forgotten that through the industrial revolution a great proportion of the industrialists, scientists and thinkers (often one and the same) possessed, or adopted, Dissenting or Non-conformist views. Many of these entrepreneurs implemented enlightened work practises involving the provision of homes and education, realizing the quid pro quo needed to enhance productivity. The result was a spectacular win-win that made Britain a Global Superpower for nearly a century.

Humanism became possible in any substantial way not because of the rightness of Hume's arguments but because a general zeitgeist of dissention from dogma and authority was clearly and visibly successful and that no moral vacuum occurred. Further the path to dissention would not have been possible were the core ideas not available in the Christian Dogma itself. It should be no surprise that Christian thinking should have picked up some of the Axial Age ideas and embedded them. The fact that those ideas were potentially self-destructive to the Dogma itself might explain why Popes were paranoid about any form of dissention whatsoever. Pull the wrong thread out and the whole lot falls to pieces.

Atheism is amoral. However, my choice to identify as an atheist (having counted myself an agnostic before) was entirely for reasons to do with pursuing a MORE moral life. It is a statement of where I DO NOT get my morals from. Obedience in moral matters is merely obedience and fits no one in making the daily, nuanced moral judgments that modern life calls for.

EDITED to remove a "not"

Other Comments by phil rimmer

26. Comment #181749 by RobDinsmore on May 18, 2008 at 6:39 am

Personally, I'm glad I'm not amoral, because that would mean being immoral wouldn't be any fun.

If you believe this statement to be correct you either misunderstand the definition of the words used or are misguided in an attempt to be funny.

A large part of what most consider morality is completely arbitrary and much of what I do on a daily basis, unprotected sex, swearing, treat gay people with respect, what have you, is considered immoral by others, but is something that should be amoral ( except the respect, thought that could be substituted with respectfully ignore and still not be immoral).

Other Comments by RobDinsmore

27. Comment #181754 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 6:52 am

huzonfurst
Thanks for the proofreading.

Excuse me, Common Toad, but the majority of people do *not* know the difference between amoral and immoral - what ivory tower have you been living in?

We're not going to settle this, but Atheism is amoral, pure and simple. It's the description of atheism in that atheism is a void, it prescribes nor requires anything more than you don't believe in a supernatural intervening god.

Common Toad, what is "patronizing" about expressing an opinion which my experience tells me is accurate?

When you put it like that nothing, it was a combination of your chastising of Henri for a statement that is irrefutably correct and your post-hoc justification that you did this because some poor unfortunate member of the, it would seem staggeringly ignorant if what you say is true (I think you can tell I don't believe this), unenlightened majority may confuse this with being immoral.

This exchange serves no value and I'm sorry I shouldn't have started this. The patronising point is important however, it is the reason for the all too common action of taking offence on a persons behalf and a stifling of criticism.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

28. Comment #181768 by T4Baxter on May 18, 2008 at 7:41 am

Lacking confidence in the existence of the Christian God has no sway on moral intuition, except perhaps, adding value to the lives of non Christians, who are no longer condemned to burn in hell.

Other Comments by T4Baxter

29. Comment #181851 by Border Collie on May 18, 2008 at 12:13 pm

The answer is ... educate yourself. If you have children, don't rely on schools to teach them anything; teach them yourselves. Learn to think critically and read, read, read. Try to instill a love of learning so that they become self perpetuating learners. Relying on schools, governments, churches, corporations, whatever, to teach us anything leads nowhere except toward the dominant paradigm.

Other Comments by Border Collie

30. Comment #181853 by mordacious1 on May 18, 2008 at 12:34 pm

RobDinsmore

Yes, it was an attempt to be funny. Yes I understand the meanings of these words. I also understand that there exists several definitions for "morality". What you refer to is a philosophical definition, where I consider myself very moral, of course it's subjective. What I was referring to was the, shall we say, biblical definition, where I would be considered immoral. This definition generally refers to chastity, marriage before sex, etc. or what many would consider "the good life", if you're not following them.

Don't read more into one sentence than what is there. I think it would be obvious to most what definition I was using.

Amoral means you don't admit to moral distinctions, you're neither moral or immoral. Few people, unless their in a coma, fit here. Unless they pick and choose like you did.

Immoral means that you act contrary to established moral principles, whether you agree with them or not. Of course, here I was picking and choosing.

Other Comments by mordacious1

31. Comment #181881 by Rawhard Dickins on May 18, 2008 at 3:05 pm

This is really good news and well overdue, but it's s a shame atheism has such a bad reputation that it can only be acceptable when wrapped up as Humanism.

What would it take to show youngsters that true atheism is driven by a desire to have a deep and complete understanding of the universe without all the magic-wand stuff.

Edit: The education system has failed if children leave school without these broad foundations and the consequences in this multi-cultural world could be disastrous.

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

32. Comment #181911 by quantum tuba on May 18, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Is Henri suggesting that Bertrand Russell's ethics were nihilistic or even perhaps utterly immoral? Let us consider that Russell was a man who argued against war, tyranny, and prejudice. Additionally, he desired improvements in education and economic conditions for all. I sincerely hope that Henri was referring to a different Russell, as the one I have read is certainly not immoral, and was one of the leading humanists of his time.

Other Comments by quantum tuba

33. Comment #181913 by Goldy on May 18, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Damn, did I miss Henri this last weeknd? Ah, well, no matter. Got my TR6 running again.
I do like Henri, though he's a bit funny, what with his amorality (it's a western construct, this moral thing, he says. Of course, he then blows his argument, again, by saying Western thought is Christian in origin. I always maintain that European Christianity is western thought derived - a reworking of Middle Eastern mythology made to fit our Euro-centrism) and his weak genes (though he hasn't mentioned them for a while).
Ah, well, no matter, I can read the comments at work :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

34. Comment #181999 by MagratGarlick on May 19, 2008 at 5:02 am

Regarding the 'atheism is amoral' comment, to be fair, it is perfectly true.

Atheism IS a-moral. However, so is theism.

The belief in an all-powerful deity does not automatically entail anything that we would recognise as 'morality'. All it entails is a kind of 'might-is-right' rule, in which we 'ought' to do what the all powerful deity tells us to do simply BECAUSE he/she/it is all powerful.

Other Comments by MagratGarlick

35. Comment #182005 by Johnny O on May 19, 2008 at 5:29 am

My son went into his RE GCSE armed with quotes from The God Delusion and got an A.

I have now converted him and he is a practising pastaferian

Other Comments by Johnny O

36. Comment #182023 by PJG on May 19, 2008 at 6:03 am

I have now converted him and he is a practising pastaferian

Child abuse! :o)

Other Comments by PJG

37. Comment #182025 by Edafometras on May 19, 2008 at 6:07 am

"Amoral persons either do not possess ethical notions at all as a result of upbringing .. or else do not subscribe to any moral code" (Wikipedia)

While Wittgenstein held that ethical principles were among the things that could only be "shown" not "said", like basic logical rules, the exceptionally rigorous code against which he judged himself throughout his life makes it odd to describe him as "amoral" either in theory or practice.

Other Comments by Edafometras

38. Comment #182427 by jeggers on May 20, 2008 at 4:56 am

31. Comment #181881 by Rawhard Dickins on May 18, 2008 at 3:05 pm

This is really good news and well overdue, but it's s a shame atheism has such a bad reputation that it can only be acceptable when wrapped up as Humanism.

What would it take to show youngsters that true atheism is driven by a desire to have a deep and complete understanding of the universe without all the magic-wand stuff.

Edit: The education system has failed if children leave school without these broad foundations and the consequences in this multi-cultural world could be disastrous.

Looking at some of the views expounded on the bbc religion and ethics website clearly demonstrates that a number of individuals reject scientific teaching in the uk education system in favour of belief. I think it merely highlights the strength of indoctrination at home. It is worrying.

Other Comments by jeggers

39. Comment #182493 by arogop on May 20, 2008 at 8:55 am

PJG

Atheism is amoral. Amoral = Without morals

So when I was kicked out of my public high school for being amoral and unchristian, they were right?

Shit.

I thought the little prick was just an asshole!

I will have to find him and apologize. Maybe even thank him.

Other Comments by arogop