It is vital that children are taught humanism's answers to life's 'ultimate questions', says Andrew Copson
- The Guardian,
- Saturday May 17 2008
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.
So what about atoms? Not everything is known through direct Experience but ... experience and reasoning by the Scientific Method
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 should have added 'science' to his list viz.. that the basis of knowledge is reason, evidence, science and experience.
As Prof. Peter Atkins said in Radio 4 Moral Maze
"Science is the only way to true knowledge. Science is the way to truth. "
BHA should amend the BHA Vision Statement from 'Our Vision
A world without religious privilege or discrimination, where people are free to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience and shared human values.'
TO
' Our Vision
A world without religious privilege or discrimination, where people are free to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience, scientific method and shared human values.
· Andrew Copson is director of education at the British Humanist Association (humanism.org.uk)
**** My pick of the 54 Comments ****
I counted 9 'beliefs' in the text, among them 3 'humanist beliefs', quite a lot for a world-view that claims to be based on evidence. And in fact, humanism is just that: a belief system among others. As such it could be taught in schools. It doesn't do any harm (although the 'humanist answers' to me as a Christian seem a bit woolly minded). I would object if humanism were sold as some proven science-based truth discovered by the new atheists.
Why not teach the children Truth. If this includes many "I don't Knows" so much the better. Is it so difficult to stay in Truth, and so easy to believe? I think not, but for what ever reason, Human Beings seem to want to believe something, that does not sit well in one's centre.
I'm a atheist but without the belief that atheism will provide a panacea(probably the opposite) for humanity.
The problem is with the course name.
To some of us non-theists, grouping humanism with scientology etc into 'Religious Studies' is a form of appeasement.
'Ethics' or 'Morals' perhaps: or a separate study of fantasy in cultural myths and their use as a power base - the latter could usefully start with 'Witch doctoring'.
Does this mean kids are to be indoctrinated with humanist beliefs? Surely not?
To amrit: of course definitions of reality have problems, but at least humanists seem to base their answers on the kind of sense based experience that everyone has access to rather than a mystical experience that lacks definition and either is a psychic illusion or is restricted to a chosen few.
All the "open questions" for humanists are just as problematic for those who push religion and religion produces many more such questions, because religion creates concepts that inherently lack adequate definition (e.g. God, after life, soul etc).
At least the humanists try not to rely on ideas that people cannot check out for themselves in some way. If this is not 100% possible, it is no reason to embrace a religion in which such substantiation is even less possible.
Perhaps a more appropriate name for RE should be: 'the history of religious myth' - that pretty much covers all of them.
Fair enough. In fact, humanism and atheism naturally come up in discussion in RE classes these days. Further still, we need to make RE/RS a much wider topic that includes philosophy and critical thinking rather than just learning from/about religion. Despite being compulsory, RE is currently a marginal subject that is only taught for one lesson a week, and often becomes a half-GCSE in many schools (and where it becomes a full GCSE option you then have the ludicrous scenario of year 10 and 11 students who have chosen different subjects wasting their precious study time having to take compulsory RE classes without any qualification at the end).
Beef it up with some decent philosophy and make it a real subject. I know teachers who have seen a marked affect in children's thinking skills after playing with a bit of basic philosophy.
Atheists have hijacked the word "humanist" for their own ends. One of the great humanists of history was Sir Thomas More, a Catholic saint. Christians believe that human concerns are central; why do atheists adopt this noble word for themselves?
I do not believe in ghosts, goblins or gods. I also disapprove of the influence of religious organisations on the political life of the country.
Yet I do not want to be called a "humanist".
It implies that I am signing up to an organised movement (joining a church?), when I feel all I'm doing is asserting the skepticism which should be the starting point of all rational inquiry: Believe what can be justified by empirical evidence and no more.
(For example, I find no evidence for the existence of the Abrahamic God. But if He decided to materialise in Westminster Abbey every Wednesday morning, I would happily accept his existence)
But I do not want my viewpoint taught in RE lessons because it is NOT a faith or a religion. It is the willingness to accept empirical evidence as the arbiter of what I consider true. And that is the antithesis of faith.
Simplicius : "I counted 9 'beliefs' in the text, among them 3 'humanist beliefs', quite a lot for a world-view that claims to be based on evidence. And in fact, humanism is just that: a belief system among others. As such it could be taught in schools. It doesn't do any harm (although the 'humanist answers' to me as a Christian seem a bit woolly minded). I would object if humanism were sold as some proven science-based truth discovered by the new atheists."
1. There are no such things as "New Atheists" or "Militant Atheists" - they are just as imaginary as your Sky Pixies.
2. Belief based upon evidence and reasoning is the essence of science and the anti-thesis of religion which has these days degenerated into blind superstition
3. Nothing wrong with being woolly minded I say!
realtheologik : "People should be discouraged from believing anything?? What about scientific and philosophical materialism?"
You wouldn't understand this of course being famously uneducated but we are talking about religious irrational evidence-less and evidence-denying 'belief' such as you espouse being a cruel and pointless deception being practised upon children.
I'm not sure that teaching children humanism is a particularly great use of their time, there are plenty of interesting and useful things they could be doing and learning instead of being inflicted with religious mumbo-jumbo so anything that relieves them from that should be welcomed I suppose.
One of the benefits of compulsory religion being forced upon children in school is that it generally immunises them for life against it and they develop a healthy disdain for the subject.
I always thought Humanism was separate from atheism, you can easily be a humanist without being an atheist and vice versa.
I consider myself humanist. But I do not, as author does, understand that humanism is a believe system. I understand humanism as ethical philosophy which is based on and aimed to dignity and worth of all human beings. For me as a humanist dignity and worth of all human beings and the sanctity of human life is the highest value and ethical standard for all actions. As such it can be part or aspect of different believe systems. I do not think that believe systems should be thought at schools, but humanism as ethical philosophy should be considered ethical standard for structuring school curriculum. And, if any believe system oppose humanism as ethical standard, it should be removed from education immediately.
To realtheologik: to take scientific materialism, scientists may come to certain conclusions that seem to them reasonable and rational based on what seems to them, from observation and experiment, to be the physical state of affairs in the universe. I don't think that has anything to do with belief.
I get a bit worried when scientists say they believe in things: Richard Dawkins, for example, has said he "believes" in the existence of laws of nature. It seems reasonable to me to say that what we call laws of nature are just rationalisations we have come to that help us talk more clearly than we might otherwise about what we think exists and happens in the physical world. The notion that they may be real and that we should believe in their physical existence seems to me very unscientific! If someone says "I believe...", it might be a good idea to interrupt them immediately and say "I don't care what you believe. I'm interested in what you think."
I expect if modern Humanists leant more about the "millennia-old humanist tradition", they'd disown it.
St Thomas More and Leonardo, for instance, are described as Humanists, but both men believed in Catholic orthodoxy and would've consigned atheists to Hell.
WoollyMindedLiberal
"I'm not sure that teaching children humanism is a particularly great use of their time, there are plenty of interesting and useful things they could be doing and learning instead of being inflicted with religious mumbo-jumbo so anything that relieves them from that should be welcomed I suppose."
It always amazes me when complete strangers start sticking their oar in and telling me how my children should be brought up. I'll get on with bringing my own kids up ta very much.
WoollyMindedLiberal
"1. There are no such things as "New Atheists" or "Militant Atheists" - they are just as imaginary as your Sky Pixies."
My classification scheme would be: Old atheists don't believe that there is any kind of god, which is ok (as a belief). New atheists claim that they can present scientific evidence that there is no god which is nonsense. They just confuse empirical experience with rigid proof. I can't name any living militant atheists although there are some examples in history.
"2. Belief based upon evidence and reasoning is the essence of science and the anti-thesis of religion which has these days degenerated into blind superstition"
You seem to make the same mistake I was mentioning under 1. Knowledge is based on evidence and reasoning, belief is something that can't be proven. As a physicist I know my calculations are correct, I would feel very uncomfortable if I had just to believe them.
"3. Nothing wrong with being woolly minded I say!"
I can see what you mean, however, I was aiming at the all-inclusive, you-are-ok-i-am-ok approach of the article which is full of truisms like "the basis of knowledge is reason, evidence and experience" or "that morality comes from our own selves as social beings." If that is humanism, that's fine with me. I am German so I may not qualify for a well-informed opinion but I doubt that these are "values and opinions they (i.e. British pupils) may not encounter elsewhere"?
just out of interest (and before I read the rest of the article) this is the MOST STUPID AND WRONG statement I think I've ever read (more wrong than god!!!)
"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."
if I can extend... microbes, atoms, gravity for starters...
secondly miracles, revelations, dreams, alien abduction etc. are often 'experianced' yet their cause is undersood and explained outside experiance.
I hope the rest is better.
There is something very fine, honourable and British about this writer's no-nonsense humanism. It's a completely practical world view. No imagination is required. No intelligence is required. No subtlety, no sensibility, no feeling for art or nature of the finer stirrings of the spirit. Here is a philosophy for a nation of clodhoppers and barrow-boys.
But humanism is a fraud, in spite of its normative appeal.
Call it what you will: God, nature, Brahman, the spirit, the ground of consciousness.... there is a deeper reality to our lives than you dunderhead humanists can imagine.
So lay down your pint pots, sharpen your sensibilities and watch what emerges from WITHIN.
When are you guys going to get with it? Eh?
Clodhoppers.
Humanism obsessives are just as bad as the religious evangelists.
2 peas in a pod.
Let kids believe in god/s - After all they will have plenty of time for it to be knocked out of them in this society that prides itself in its arrogance and spitefulness.
Humanists are the sort of obsessive nuts that tell kids that the tooth fairy and father christmas are not real, quite happily shattering the anyway short-lived illusions of children and feeling good about it.
Saddo's..
@WoollyMindedLiberal
"1. There are no such things as "New Atheists" or "Militant Atheists" - they are just as imaginary as your Sky Pixies."
Of course there is a difference in the thinking between say, Nietzsche and Dawkins.
The former was intellectually honest enough to see how difficult, if not impossible, it would be to form a sound moral framework without an external, unprovable axiom such as "God is love". Dawkins, without any justification assumes that all ethical atheists are behaving entirely rationally and not relying whatsoever on such an unprovable rule.
In the same vein Dawkins is a huge promoter of 'scientism', and thinks that we have the conceptual ability to explain all things through science. That is both wrong and counter-intuitive. That is it is counter-intuitive to most of mankind except those with a partial/faulty knowledge of science and the philosophy of science...which is why I suppose he finds an accessible audience amongst the people that inhabit these message boards. He avoids these questions as doggedly as you do.
I see you posting your sneering jibes on here all the time...constantly repeating the same incorrect assertions such as the one I quoted.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why so many people make the differentiation between old and new atheists. If you don't know then ask someone, listen and have a discussion. In the meantime I encourage you to get a job or a hobby or something, before you sneer your silly face off.
Thanks Andrew, what a lovely surprise to see your cheery face at the bottom of the Letters page. I sent the link to the Head of Year 7 at my son's school, and they have now finally decided to allow a speaker from the BHA to address an assembly next term. They already have the Gideon Christians every year, so at last we will get an alternative view. Brilliant. As for the view that Humanism is a 'pseudo-religion', I can speak as a parent in the inner city where lots of young people have no points of reference or moral framework, they definitely need some ideas about how to interact with others and become decent people. A PSHCE teacher told me that a lot of kids start school without the faintest idea about why it's wrong to steal, etc. As most of them aren't interested in religion -(65% of 12-19 year-olds)- Humanism offers a very real and relevant philosophy of life. The secularists who scoff and say it's up to the individual and that we don't want to be lumped in with religions in RE are missing the point.
As long as religion is taught in schools, there is a need to teach children that religion is unnecessary in order to live a good life, and that a large proportion of the UK are not religious. Any educational curriculum must be broad and balanced. Adding Humanism to RE helps redress the imbalance (by Humanism, I mean the modern UK Humanism of the British Humanist Society). Failing to provide this balance is tantamount to indoctrination.
Incredibly, RE syllabuses are still drawn up by the local education authority. One county may include the non-religious, another may not. The RE syllabus is presided over by a group called the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE). This group comprises representatives of faith groups (50%), teachers (25%) and the local council (25%). About half of SACREs now have a non-voting Humanist representative. The vested interests of the faith groups are reflected in the local syllabus; they often fight tooth and nail to exclude the non-religious.
Ideally, RE should be replaced by something like Philosophy and Culture. Teaching time is far too valuable to spend 5% of it studying religion in such meticulous detail. Far better to teach children how to reason, how to decide between fact and fiction. Cultural beliefs should be taught in an unbiased manner and placed in context. Morality should first be derived using reason, rather than through a religious perspective as is currently the case.
Until that happy day, the British Humanist Society is doing its best to work from within the system. Humanism is a reaction to religion. As long as the government supports religious privilege and involvement in our public institutions, there is a need for Humanist opposition.
Humanists are simply reasonable people who do not believe in the supernatural. You don't need to call yourself a Humanist to be a Humanist. From the starting point of reason, all else follows. This is what education should be all about.
RE is a great way to confuse young children. Worse still, some children are deeply affected by it. If anything, school should be the antidote to religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment