Research Summary: Worldviews in RE

Jacomijn van der Kooij and colleagues provide a clear and concise definition of worldview, for use in RE curriculum development and pedagogy.

Researchers

Jacomijn van der Kooij, Doret de Ruyter and Siebren Miedema

Research Institution

VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

What is this about?

Whilst the original article is about what worldview means in relation to RE, and is a very interesting and detailed read, the summary below under Main findings and outputs should give curriculum developers and teachers at least a start and a framework for getting to grips with the issue – and you can follow up the link to the original article if you have library access and want the wider context.

What was done?

The researchers looked over literature on worldview and distilled some principles for curriculum and pedagogy in RE, as summarised in the Main findings and outputs section.

Main findings and outputs

1. Every religion’s a worldview, but not all worldviews are religious, because they don’t all recognise the existence of the transcendent.
2. There are organised and personal worldviews; organised are systemic, whereas personal can be developed through a bricoleur approach, taking elements from different sources.
3. Worldviews aren’t just views on life, the world and humanity. More is needed. Membership of a political party, for instance, isn’t a worldview.
4. There are four conditions – having views on matters of ultimate concern, including ontological, cosmological, theological, teleological, eschatological, and ethical notions; these views must influence thinking and acting; a worldview has moral values related to understanding of the good life and the well-being of other people; a worldview gives meaning in a person’s life, and on the meaning of life, or an understanding of the purpose of human beings in general.
5. So, an organised worldview is one that has developed over time as a coherent and established system. It has sources, traditions, values, rituals, ideals, or dogmas, and a group of believers.
6. But a personal worldview can be held without being articulated. Somebody’s answers to existential questions may not be clear-cut, the person may be continuing to reflect. If somebody’s moral values are what give meaning to him or her, these can constitute a personal worldview, though people can have personal worldviews in the absence of moral values: aesthetic or other ones may be central. A personal worldview can be based on a meaning in life or can be one where a belief in pointlessness replaces this; it must affect thoughts and actions to qualify as a worldview, though other practical factors may also affect the person’s decisions.
7. RE shouldn’t only focus on religions as organised systems, but also on differences between people who identify with the systems, and how the personal worldviews of pupil or their parents are developing. Depending on the school, pupils’ worldviews might be expected to be developing in relation to one organised worldview (‘learning in religion’) or several (‘learning from religion’).

Relevance to RE

Curriculum developers and teachers need a clear concept of worldview, as applied to RE, in order to consider what to include in the curriculum and how to approach it in the classroom.

Generalisability and potential limitations

This isn’t the only way in which the concept of worldview has been understood, but it was developed with RE in mind, is widely cited, and may well be of good use.

Find out more

Jacomijn C. van der Kooij , Doret J. de Ruyter and Siebren Miedema, “‘Worldview’: the Meaning of the Concept and the Impact on Religious Education,” Religious Education, 108 (2) (2013): 210-228.

Research Summary: Worldviews education in Finland and Australia

This research covers global issues relating to the decline of the popularity of institutional religions, the rise of numbers of non-religious persons, and new models of spirituality in ‘superdiverse’ societies. It shows the need to reconceptualise religious diversity as worldviews diversity, and to critically examine calls for the provision of worldviews education in schools. It gives an overview of scholarship on worldviews and worldviews education. It provides case studies of worldview/s education in Finland and Australia, drawing on data of recently completed qualitative and quantitative studies in the two countries. It compares the two contexts, and makes recommendations on worldviews education as a means of enhancing cross-cultural literacy, positive attitudes to religious diversity and social inclusion.

Researchers

Tuuli Lipiäinen, Anna Halafoff, Fethi Mansouri & Gary Bouma

Research Institution

University of Helsinki; Deakin University, Melbourne; Deakin University, Melbourne; Monash University, Melbourne

What is this about?

• How ‘old-style religion’ has declined.
• How in increasingly diverse, or ‘super-diverse’ societies, people’s worldview or spirituality can be a hybrid of influences, from religious traditions and beyond.
• What worldviews education means.
• Worldviews education developments in Finland and Australia.
• How worldviews education should reflect young people’s lived realities.

What was done?

A wide range of literature was reviewed, across worldviews, religion, education, state statistics and education policy documents. Two jurisdictions were considered in some detail, in relation to their worldviews education provision, and recommendations for future good practice were drawn.

Main findings and outputs

• ‘Old-style’ or ‘packaged’ religion is declining; less and less people follow one religion’s rules, beliefs or ways; instead, people’s worldviews often comprise different elements from inside, between and outside religions, and (especially those of young people) often change.
• Education about these processes and worldviews can play a part in pupils’ maturation, understanding of others and management of diversity.
• No two countries are identical, so standardised worldviews education strategies are not achievable – they must be context-specific.
• In Finland, where pupils study religion and worldviews in own-religion or worldview groups, pressure and innovation from scholars and some schools to adopt mixed groups has resulted in positive development of dialogue skills.
• In Australia, Victoria is the only state to include distinct educational content on learning about worldviews and religions. Scholars are pushing for more of this, to foster religious and worldview literacy and respect for diversity.
• Young people are more and more likely to encounter diverse worldviews and their education needs to reflect this. It also needs to examine the power relations that are part of diversity and associated with holding different worldviews.

Relevance to RE

This analysis presents major challenges to policy makers and curriculum developers, and, in time, to teachers. How can structures be established to replace the outdated ‘old-style religion’ RE model with one that reflects the ‘superdiverse’ R&W situation? Possibly this means more attention to personal worldviews, with organised religious and non-religious traditions studied as background resources.

Generalisability and potential limitations

As the authors say, their research focuses on two particular contexts, and cannot simply be transferred to others. But superdiversity and worldview or spiritual hybridity can be recognised in different places, and the research clearly connects with English discussions on the introduction of R&W.

Find out more

The original article is Tuuli Lipiäinen, Anna Halafoff, Fethi Mansouri & Gary Bouma (2020): Diverse worldviews education and social inclusion: a comparison between Finnish and Australian approaches to build intercultural and interreligious understanding, British Journal of Religious Education, DOI: 10.1080/01416200.2020.1737918

https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2020.1737918

Research Summary: Worldviews and Big Ideas: A Way Forward for Religious Education?

The open-access article begins by summarising the findings of 2018 report from the Commission on Religious Education (CoRE), which we use here as a case study to illustrate current issues in Religious Education more generally. The CoRE report suggested that the subject name be changed from ‘Religious Education’ (RE) to ‘Religion and Worldviews’ (RW), which leads us to explore the meaning(s) of the term ‘worldview’, outline the distinction between institutional/organised and personal worldviews, and give an overview of academic debates about the ‘worldviews’ issue. This is followed by a discussion of some of the challenges and implications of the proposed change from RE to RW, addressing concerns that have been raised about dilution of the subject and decreased academic rigour. The article then suggests ways of using a ‘Big Ideas’ approach to the study of religion(s) and worldview(s) to engage students in discussion of ‘worldview’ as a concept and worldviews as phenomena. It explains the ‘Big Ideas’ approach (Wiggins and McTighe 1998; Wintersgill 2017; Freathy and John 2019) before discussing how Big Ideas might be used to select curriculum content, also considering what the implications of this might be for teachers and teaching.

Researchers

Prof Rob Freathy & Dr Helen John

Research Institution

University of Exeter

What is this about?

The article focuses on the issue of worldviews in Religious Education, asking the following questions:

1. What does the 2018 report from the Commission on Religious Education (CoRE) suggest about worldviews in RE?
2. What is meant by the term ‘worldview’? Is a religion a worldview? Does everyone have a worldview?
3. What is the difference between an ‘institutional worldview’ and a ‘personal worldview’?
4. What are the benefits and challenges of incorporating worldviews into RE?
5. What are ‘Big Ideas about the study of religion(s) and worldview(s)’ (Freathy and John 2019)?
6. How might ‘Big Ideas about the study of religion(s) and worldview(s)’ help teachers to explore worldviews in the RE classroom? What are the implications for teachers’ professional development and for the classroom?

What was done?

This theoretical article is an academic response to the key findings of the final report of the Commission on Religion Education (CoRE 2018), which was sponsored by the Religious Education Council for England and Wales. It focuses particularly on the proposal to change the title of Religious Education (RE) to Religion and Worldviews (RW). It explores the meaning of the term ‘worldview’ how worldviews might be selected for inclusion in the curriculum. The article discusses the report’s recommendations for greater focus on multi-disciplinary, multi-methodological and reflexive, encounter-driven approaches. It suggests that teachers might use the ‘Big Ideas about the study of religion(s) and worldview(s)’ (Freathy and John 2019) to achieve closer alignment between RW in schools and the academic study of religion(s) and worldview(s) in universities.

Main findings and outputs

The authors argue that key to the successful delivery of ‘a new and richer version of the subject’ (CoRE, 3) is generating in school students a better understanding of the concept ‘worldview’. Although there is disagreement over precise definitions of the term (just as there is with the term ‘religion’), Freathy and John suggest that this imprecision is something to be embraced. Teachers should explore the complexity of the terms and concepts with their students – focusing explicitly on their contested and imprecise nature – in order to further the students’ understanding of the term and of worldviews themselves. They argue that the report’s distinction between institutional and personal worldviews is a helpful one, albeit with some limitations, and will assist students in appreciating the diverse sources upon which they draw in the ongoing development of their own dynamic ‘worldview web’. Investigation into the institutional/personal distinction could also help students to be sensitive to diversity within institutional worldviews, based on individual and contextual lived experience. A better understanding of the fluid concept of ‘worldview’ will enrich and add rigour to the curriculum, as the report suggests, not act to ‘dilute’ it or to decrease its rigour, as critics have suggested. Building upon earlier research (Freathy and John 2019), the authors suggest that focusing on features of the academic study of religion(s) and worldview(s) – studying how we study – will enable teachers to incorporate the new ‘worldviews’ approach into their teaching without diluting the curriculum. Using these ‘Big Ideas about’ would involve encouraging students to consider explicitly:

Relevance to RE

This article would make excellent background reading for teachers who (a) need a brief summary of the final report from the Commission on Religious Education; (b) would like to know more about the ‘worldview’ concept; (c) want to know more about the Big Ideas framework; and/or (d) wonder how they might incorporate into their classroom practice a greater focus on ‘worldviews’.
The open-access article is entitled ‘Worldviews and Big Ideas: A Way Forward for Religious Education?’ and appears in Nordidactica 2019, Volume 4.

It builds on a previous article by the same authors (search ‘Introducing ‘Big Ideas’ to UK Religious Education’ for equivalent RE:Online Research Report), in which they reflect on the application of the Big Ideas of Science Education project to the UK Religious Education curriculum: Rob Freathy and Helen C. John. 2019. ‘Religious Education, Big Ideas and the study of religion(s) and worldview(s).’ British Journal of Religious Education 41.1: 27-40. DOI: 10.1080/01416200.2018.1500351

Useful resources for a Big Ideas/Worldviews approach to RE/RW

A curriculum package for teachers to use to introduce ‘Big Ideas about the study of religion(s) and worldview(s)’ will follow in 2020.
A ‘Big Ideas about’ approach can be seen in the secondary textbook called ‘Who is Jesus’, which is available online at <https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/education/research/networks/religionandspirituality/publications/ and in the ‘RE-searchers’ approach (primary), which can be found at RE-searchers approach
You might also find the original ‘Big Ideas for RE’ (Wintersgill, ed, 2017) report helpful:
https://tinyurl.com/y7ra365d

Please contact R.J.K.Freathy@exeter.ac.uk for further information about the ideas found in the article and the additional resources, or to get involved with the trialling the RE-searchers (Primary) or ‘Big Ideas about’ (Secondary) approach.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The article is primarily aimed at teachers and RE researchers and considers theoretical perspectives. However, it also gives an insight into practical resources available for ‘worldviews’ teaching at primary and secondary level (see details below).

Find out more

The open-access article is entitled ‘Worldviews and Big Ideas: A Way Forward for Religious Education?’ and appears in Nordidactica 2019, Volume 4.

https://www.kau.se/nordidactica/las-nordidactica/nordidactica-20194-kjerneelementer-og-store-ideercore-elements-and

Research Summary: What is religion?

This is a themed report of relevant chapters of Christian Smith’s book Religion: What it is, how it works, and why it matters. This report focuses on the definition of religion; the how it works and why it matters themes will be covered in later reports. In a review of the book, Jose Casanova describes its definition of religion as ‘the best theoretical and analytical definition I know’. Smith grounds the need to understand religion in the need to understand the world. The approach is sociological and focuses on practices. Whilst certainly not avoiding discussion of religious beliefs, it takes a compatibilist approach to questions of their truth; meaning, the account of religion given is compatible with different religious, agnostic or atheistic truth-claims. The definition of religion is worth quoting in full, from page 3:

‘Religion is a complex of culturally prescribed practices that are based on premises about the existence and nature of superhuman powers. These powers may be personal or impersonal, but they are always superhuman in the dual sense that they can do things which humans cannot do and that they do not depend for their existence on human activities. Religious people engage in complexes of practices in order to gain access to and communicate or align themselves with these superhuman powers. The hope involved in the cultural prescribing of these practices is to realize human goods and avoid bads, especially (but not only) to avert misfortunes and receive blessings and deliverance from crises.’

Researcher

Christian Smith

Research Institution

University of Notre Dame

What is this about?

This is about understanding what religion is. Questions of how it works, why people are religious and why religions matter are taken up in different parts of Smith’s book, and will be treated in later research reports.

‘Anyone who wants to understand the world today has got to understand religion . . . Understanding many major problems today is impossible without accounting for religion’s influences . . . religion remains a crucial feature of human life.’ (Pages 1-2.)

What was done?

The book is a scholarly social scientific enquiry into its subject matter, drawing on a wide range of theories and studies in order to back up its conclusions. It uses examples of lived contemporary religion to illustrate these at regular points of the argument.

Main findings and outputs

• Religion is a set of practices, based on convictions about superhuman powers.
• The practices aim for access to, communication with, or alignment with the powers, which may be held to be personal or impersonal, towards the end of realizing human goods.
• Religion also has secondary aspects, or ‘causal capacities’ that shape the characters of its different traditions and exert influence on the world. These include forms of social identity and community, aesthetic expressions, agencies of social control, authority, and so on.
• Beliefs can of course be highly significant within religions. ‘There is no religion without some beliefs.’ (Page 30). But religion must be conceptually defined with reference to practices and their culturally prescribed meanings.
• Individual people can participate in any religious practice from a wide variety of motivations, without fully or consciously agreeing with the related ‘established’ beliefs; the focus needs to be on the culture and tradition, what it says those practices mean and aim to achieve. ‘Religious practices are social realities irreducible to the beliefs of the people who enact them.’ (Page 32).
• The subjective intentions of religious people matter hugely as examples of religiousness, and should be investigated, but this is a different question to that of the conceptual definition of religion.

Relevance to RE

The relevance of Smith’s analysis to RE is in offering some clarifications on subject aims and pedagogy. (Notice that the CORE report lays emphasis on understanding religion as a conceptual category and that Smith’s analysis offers a way to do this.) On Smith’s analysis, the primary subject matter would be religion, namely the range of religious practices observable in the world. What happens during these practices? For what goods do they aim? There would then be two secondary layers of enquiry, one into how repeated religious practices flow into aspects such as social identity, aesthetic expression and power, another into religiousness at the individual level.

Generalisability and potential limitations

Readers are certainly encouraged to read this book and consider further how its material might be relevant to RE practice. One clear limitation is that more discussion would be needed on how to base studies of non-religious worldviews on Smith’s model. Whether religions are best described as worldviews is also called into question. The model cannot provide a basis for a philosophical approach to RE where pupils are helped to debate religious truth-claims (but, again, would be compatible with one).

Find out more

Christian Smith, Religion: What it is, how it works, and why it matters, Princeton and Oxford (Princeton University Press): 2017.

For a brief summary and order details (paperback available at £17.99) see https://press.princeton.edu/titles/11200.html .

Casanova’s review of the book is at https://academic.oup.com/jcs/article-abstract/61/1/126/5303792?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Research Summary: What does the shift to worldview mean for teachers?

The notion of worldview is prominent in recent discussions of RE, following the publication of the CORE report. This research reflects on this development. It gives a nuanced understanding of the notion of worldview. It explores the pedagogical implications of the shift to worldview, drawing on the work of Robert Jackson, Michael Grimmitt and Anthony Thiselton.

Researchers

Professor Trevor Cooling

Research Institution

Canterbury Christ Church University

What is this about?

• Current discussions of RE, specifically, the shift to a focus on worldview, following the publication of the CORE report.
• The meaning of the concept of worldview.
• What a move to worldview means for teachers of RE / R&W, in practice.

What was done?

The researcher considered the impact of the concept of worldview on his own work, in an autobiographical manner. He then analysed the treatment of worldview in the CORE report and subsequent discussions, including points made by critics of CORE or of the worldview concept. He then identified the pedagogical implications of CORE, arguing that R&W teaching will need to take a hermeneutical approach (explained further below) if the proposed changes are to take effect.

Main findings and outputs

• R&W is not simply a matter of adding extra content to RE – when religions are viewed as fluid, complex, diverse worldviews, the subject changes.
• A key focus is on the lived experience of people and communities identifying with a particular institutional worldview: CORE, here, draws heavily on Robert Jackson’s interpretive approach to RE.
• A second key focus is on personal worldview – a concern to pick up positive elements of Michael Grimmitt’s ‘learning from religion’; pupils should understand the varied influences on them as they form their own worldviews.
• Anthony Thiselton’s ‘responsible hermeneutics’ provides the disciplinary knowledge needed in R&W. It gives teachers three responsibilities:

1. Promote rigorous knowledge of what is being taught.
2. Ensure rigorous reflection on the contemporary context and how it may influence both teacher’s and pupils’ perspectives.
3. Ensure rigorous reflection on the potential interaction between 1 and 2, so that teacher and pupils benefit in their own self-understanding.

Relevance to RE

The research is of high relevance to teachers who are concerned to understand the meaning of the CORE report and the shift to worldviews as far as their own professional practice is concerned. As the researcher concludes, it is not yet a workable curriculum or resources. This needs to come next, but the researcher has outlined a basis for it.

Generalisability and potential limitations

This research does not present a set of generalisable data from a survey or other instrument. Rather, it is a detailed, balanced discussion of the worldview concept, based on reading, analysis and reflection. It offers teachers and other professionals an account of what the CORE report and the move from RE to R&W mean in practice, though (as yet) without details of curriculum or resources.

Find out more

The original article is Trevor Cooling (2020) Worldview in religious education: autobiographical reflections on The Commission on Religious Education in England final report, British Journal of Religious Education, DOI: 10.1080/01416200.2020.1764497

The article is available open-access at 10.1080/01416200.2020.1764497

Research Summary: Some interesting points about the problem of evil and the free-will defence

Many people find Alvin Plantinga’s free-will defence to be a successful solution to the problem of evil. Essentially, Plantinga’s defence is that a world containing creatures that sometimes freely perform morally good actions is better than a world with no freedom. The author finds problems with this defence. He finds that it contradicts other important ideas about God, for example, that God is morally perfect – in this case, a hypothetical person who always freely chooses morally good actions would surpass God in morality (God, as morally perfect, cannot perform any immoral actions). He takes up a possible counter-argument – that God, as the ultimate source of His own actions, can always freely do what is morally right, because there are no controls over His actions – and rejects it, on the grounds that even if there are no controls over God’s actions, God being God still entails that He cannot perform any immoral actions. The points made can be used during discussions and debates in A level Philosophy and Ethics lessons, as will be shown in more detail below.

Researcher

Erik J. Wielenberg

Research Institution

De Pauw University, USA

What is this about?

• Does the existence of evil rule out the existence of God?
• Does the free-will defence stand up (that it is better to create free creatures, but freedom will always result in some evil actions)?
• If God, as morally perfect, cannot perform immoral actions, does this make a person who always freely performs morally good actions more moral than God?
• Or does God always do what is morally right freely, because there are no controls over God’s actions?

What was done?

This is a philosophical discussion about God, evil and the free-will defence, analysing and criticising different philosophers’ views and drawing insightful conclusions.

Main findings and outputs

• Alvin Plantinga’s free-will response to the problem of evil is often held to be successful. Plantinga argues that a world containing creatures that sometimes freely perform morally good actions is better than a world with no freedom.
• The author of the article, Erik Wielenberg, thinks that there are problems with Plantinga’s argument. God is, according to Plantinga and others, a morally perfect being whose perfection cannot be exceeded. Yet God’s morally good actions are not done freely. God cannot help but do what is morally good and is incapable of morally wrong actions.
• This seems to mean that a hypothetical person who always freely chose to do what was morally good would exceed the moral perfection of God.
• Wielenberg discusses a possible solution to the problem he has identified, provided by Kevin Timpe. Timpe proposes that God, as the ultimate source of His own actions, can always freely do what is morally right, because there are no controls over His actions.
• Wielenberg finds this counter-argument to fail. There may be no external controls over the actions of God, if God exists: but the nature of God, as essentially perfect, entails that God cannot freely perform any morally good actions.
• Wielenberg concludes by saying that in the light of the points he has made, believers in God ‘have some thinking to do’.

Relevance to RE

Colleagues teaching A level Philosophy and Ethics will find the original article very stimulating and useful, though it is closely and at times technically argued and needs ‘translation’ for use with A level students. However, having said that, the above list of Main findings and outputs could be transferred to a power point presentation and used to structure an extension lesson on the problem of evil. The points could be discussed and debated by students. The What is this about? questions could be used as the basis of a starter activity beforehand. Finally, students could be asked to evaluate Wielenberg’s arguments against Aristotle’s: Wielenberg believes that the concept of God may be contradictory because God cannot freely perform morally right actions, but Aristotle’s Prime Mover does not really perform actions in any case.

Generalisability and potential limitations

The points presented in the article are generally very useful within Philosophy lessons about the problem of evil and, as suggested above, could be used to extend students’ learning.

Find out more

Plantingian theism and the free-will defence, Religious Studies 52.4 pages 451-460 (published online 28 June 2016), 10.1017/S0034412516000135

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412516000135

Research Summary: RE: knowledge, wisdom and truth

This is an explanation of critical religious education. Three key ideas are presented. The search for knowledge requires a rigorous academic study of religion; the search for wisdom demands the personal engagement of the learner in this study; and the search for truth draws knowledge and wisdom together. For the writer, the argument is encapsulated in Iris Murdoch’s observation that ‘to do philosophy is to explore one’s own temperament, and yet at the same time to attempt to discover the truth’. Regarding knowledge, RE must have a rigorous and systematic academic grounding. This has value for pupils, in the broader context of their striving for personal formation or the cultivation of wisdom. The key driver of critical RE is the search for ultimate truth. When the search for truth pulls together the study of religion and the personal formation of learners, critical RE is able to overcome the polarity between ‘learning about’ and ‘learning from’ religion. These ideas set excellent challenges to RE teachers: how rigorous is the study of religion in our classrooms? To what extent are learners engaged personally? Are they genuinely enabled to search for truth?

Researcher

Andrew Wright

Research Institution

University College London Institute of Education and London School of Theology

What is this about?

• From the 1970s on, phenomenological approaches to RE tended to be limited to narrow descriptions of religions, not addressing pupils’ concerns.
• Critical RE is one attempt to overcome this problem, enabling pupils to enter into a rationale critique of religion. Religion should be scrutinised, to build pupils’ religious literacy. It does not involve being cynical about religion: more, debating the truth issues raised by religion, building reasoned thought.
• It is not a technique that can be trained, but a disposition for teachers and pupils, based on asking intelligent questions. It can be developed: it is needed in university theology or philosophy, the only difference at school being the need for it to be practised at levels appropriate to age or ability.
• Critical RE makes the subject more intellectually rigorous, which may help to motivate pupils more fully (see Main findings and outputs, below).

What was done?

This is a scholarly essay, examining the background to and the nature of an approach to RE – critical RE – and offering arguments for the suitability and strength of this approach.

Main findings and outputs

• Knowledge. RE must have a rigorous academic grounding. Critical thinking requires both distance from religion (in order to think and reflect), and engagement with religion (to experience its potential value). Rather than being taught religious ‘facts’, children should learn to think critically in the manner of philosophers or theologians.
• There are potential dangers in this approach, that RE should become detached from religious adherents’ life-worlds, or too dry for pupils. However, an emphasis on wisdom helps overcome these dangers.
• Wisdom. The modern divide between rational theology and experiential religion may be reflected in RE’s model of ‘learning about religion’ and ‘learning from religion’. Yet critical realist philosophy may help to bridge the divide: the search for knowledge of the world can be seen as a personal pursuit, helping to make us wiser, more responsible people. In RE this involves rigorously weighing religious truth claims and scrutining one’s own opinions in the light of the search for truth.
• Truth. The core focus of critical RE is to be found in the question of ultimate truth. Is there an ultimate religious truth? Is there an ultimate order of things, which exists independently of our ability to perceive it? The question is unresolved. The aim of critical RE is to equip pupils with the skills to engage intelligently with the question for themselves. The choices between atheism, theism and agnosticism are unavoidable; the more critically and reflectively they are made, the better. The questions are simultaneously academic and personal.

Relevance to RE

There are strong messages for RE teachers in this article, that have the potential for positive impact on pedagogy. Rigour in RE, for example, does not mean the learning of more and more ‘facts’ about religion: the author offers a model according to which rigorous teaching enables pupils to gain progressively in theological and philosophical reasoning ability. This means that they will benefit personally from the process of critical RE. Teachers should focus lessons on ultimate questions arising out of religion, be prepared to discuss and debate these with pupils and encourage pupils to discuss and debate with one another. The process should be driven by concern for truth. Is this true? How do we know? What evidence and arguments can be given in support? What other points of view might be taken, and why? What do I think about this? Are my own reasons supported by good evidence or arguments?

Generalisability and potential limitations

Whilst not presenting data that could be viewed as generalisable or otherwise, the article certainly raises profound and important questions that ought to be considered seriously by RE teachers and other RE professionals in general. The approach explained in the article has been influential, rightly, and continues to be so.

Find out more

The Contours of Critical Religious Education: Knowledge, Wisdom, Truth, British Journal of Religious Education 25,4, pages 279-291 (published online 6 July 2006), 10.1080/0141620030250403

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0141620030250403