News0 min ago
Philosophy A Level Syllabus Converted To Re?
10 Answers
I'm only raising this as a thread because there's healthy ongoing theist/atheist debate on AB. I am neither a teacher nor planning to study philosophy but this change of syllabus might go unnoticed and I wondered if anyone might be concerned by such plans?
http://
Bonus question: would any of you take any active steps to try to avert this? (I wouldn't know where to start).
http://
Bonus question: would any of you take any active steps to try to avert this? (I wouldn't know where to start).
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hypognosis. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Let's start with 'where I'm coming from' (even though I hate that American phrase!):
I'm an atheist. Not just one who can't be bothered with religion but one who has organised Bible-burning parties, one who has stood outside churches with signs declaring 'There is no God' and one who has physically ejected a Bishop from his classroom (in front of the kids and the head teacher) because I wouldn't allow a Christian cross to be displayed.
However even I can accept that the 'philosophy of religion' might have a part to play in the study of philosophy as a whole. Even so, I would hope that it would be a minor part, and not a major part of the syllabus (as suggested by your link).
One of the (somewhat obscure) O-level passes I achieved at school was in 'The History and Philosophy of Science'. I learnt (even at that early age) that it's impossible to study the history of science without also examining the philosophical principles (which were largely founded upon religion) that either advanced scientific developments (as in many Islamic countries) or held them back (as in many Christian countries). So, from a purely historical perspective, religion, philosophy and science are all inter-related. However the study of philosophy as a whole shouldn't be mainly about history but largely about current philosophy and the influences that have helped to develop it.
During my teaching years I was constantly bombarded (via the media and elsewhere) with ideas as to what should be added to the school curriculum but very few people seemed to consider what might be lost through such additions. (There is only a finite amount of time in a school day; adding something in may often mean throwing something else out). My concern here might be that giving more time to those who see 'philosophy' and 'religion' as almost the same thing may lead to nihilist philosophers (whom I would champion), such as Nietzsche, being virtually excluded from the syllabus.
I'm an atheist. Not just one who can't be bothered with religion but one who has organised Bible-burning parties, one who has stood outside churches with signs declaring 'There is no God' and one who has physically ejected a Bishop from his classroom (in front of the kids and the head teacher) because I wouldn't allow a Christian cross to be displayed.
However even I can accept that the 'philosophy of religion' might have a part to play in the study of philosophy as a whole. Even so, I would hope that it would be a minor part, and not a major part of the syllabus (as suggested by your link).
One of the (somewhat obscure) O-level passes I achieved at school was in 'The History and Philosophy of Science'. I learnt (even at that early age) that it's impossible to study the history of science without also examining the philosophical principles (which were largely founded upon religion) that either advanced scientific developments (as in many Islamic countries) or held them back (as in many Christian countries). So, from a purely historical perspective, religion, philosophy and science are all inter-related. However the study of philosophy as a whole shouldn't be mainly about history but largely about current philosophy and the influences that have helped to develop it.
During my teaching years I was constantly bombarded (via the media and elsewhere) with ideas as to what should be added to the school curriculum but very few people seemed to consider what might be lost through such additions. (There is only a finite amount of time in a school day; adding something in may often mean throwing something else out). My concern here might be that giving more time to those who see 'philosophy' and 'religion' as almost the same thing may lead to nihilist philosophers (whom I would champion), such as Nietzsche, being virtually excluded from the syllabus.
"ditching" was an overstatement; they're ditching only part of the course (I don't know what part of it was previously given over to religious studies, but it will henceforth be 50% - if the draft is approved, of course). But my objection remains. With basic study so eroded, how many will go on to read philosophy at university?
I don't share others' fury that religion is allowed to be mentioned in public, but I do feel philosophy is a vital subject of study and that the proposals seriously weaken it.
I don't share others' fury that religion is allowed to be mentioned in public, but I do feel philosophy is a vital subject of study and that the proposals seriously weaken it.
@jno
good recovery there ;-)
//how many will go on to read philosophy at university?//
I hazard a guess that it's precious few, already, given that the article reckons that the Philosophy course is already farmed out to the resident RE teacher in many schools, hence the steering of pupils towards the religion-based optional exam question.
But then there is a problem in itself - every student must ask themselves "why would I want to take this subject if all it qualifies me for is to become a teacher of it?"
good recovery there ;-)
//how many will go on to read philosophy at university?//
I hazard a guess that it's precious few, already, given that the article reckons that the Philosophy course is already farmed out to the resident RE teacher in many schools, hence the steering of pupils towards the religion-based optional exam question.
But then there is a problem in itself - every student must ask themselves "why would I want to take this subject if all it qualifies me for is to become a teacher of it?"
Just speaking to my 15 year old daughter after reading this thread. Her school has Philosophy GCSE as compulsory. She says about 50% of it is religion based and it's taught by the sociology teacher.
I'm not sure if that's really relevant to 'A' Level- but we didn't even have it as an option at GCSE or 'A' Level when i was at school. Religious beliefs are definitely relevant to Sociology. Whether it should be 50%, I'm not convinced.
I'm not sure if that's really relevant to 'A' Level- but we didn't even have it as an option at GCSE or 'A' Level when i was at school. Religious beliefs are definitely relevant to Sociology. Whether it should be 50%, I'm not convinced.
Just another example of turning teaching into training (something which was such a strong foundation of Thatcher's thinking) and not developing children's capacity to think for themselves ("the old Tory mantra, we mustn't teach the lower classes to think or they will spot how we mercilessly exploit them for our own enrichment).
It must be stopped - but how do we go about it when the mainstream media is so politically far Right ?
It must be stopped - but how do we go about it when the mainstream media is so politically far Right ?
>>>"why would I want to take this subject if all it qualifies me for is to become a teacher of it?"
A relevant link, perhaps?
http://
A relevant link, perhaps?
http://
@pixie
Not an option for me, either, back in O-level days. If it had been, I suspect I'd not have attempted it, just from lack of interest.
(Lack of interest, at that age, being the result of lack of research into what it entailed. These days, we have Wikipedia to muck around with and it's only a matter of time before I encounter some jargon that I simply must know more about and end up in the philosophy section...)
;-)
As you rightly point out, religion needs to be understood if one is to end up in a job dealing with people day-to-day, so, equally, I think it wouldn't be right to chop it out of the course entirely.
I also notice there that a sociology teacher is drafted in to teach the course. Not enough teachers, suitably qualified for the subject, to go around. :-/
@canary42
//the old Tory mantra, we mustn't teach the lower classes to think or they will spot how we mercilessly exploit them for our own enrichment). //
Or, as I prefer to phrase it "we musn't teach people to think - it makes them too left-wing". (No Tory worth their salt would say "makes them too fair-minded", as that would be conceding way too much!)
@Buenchico
Thanks for the link,
Starts promisingly but try not to scroll all the way down to the last paragraph (with the employment stats charts) as it would knock the wind out of the sails of even optimistic types.
(I did cross-check by calling up a page for another subject and the charts were equally demoralising).
Thanks for replying.
Not an option for me, either, back in O-level days. If it had been, I suspect I'd not have attempted it, just from lack of interest.
(Lack of interest, at that age, being the result of lack of research into what it entailed. These days, we have Wikipedia to muck around with and it's only a matter of time before I encounter some jargon that I simply must know more about and end up in the philosophy section...)
;-)
As you rightly point out, religion needs to be understood if one is to end up in a job dealing with people day-to-day, so, equally, I think it wouldn't be right to chop it out of the course entirely.
I also notice there that a sociology teacher is drafted in to teach the course. Not enough teachers, suitably qualified for the subject, to go around. :-/
@canary42
//the old Tory mantra, we mustn't teach the lower classes to think or they will spot how we mercilessly exploit them for our own enrichment). //
Or, as I prefer to phrase it "we musn't teach people to think - it makes them too left-wing". (No Tory worth their salt would say "makes them too fair-minded", as that would be conceding way too much!)
@Buenchico
Thanks for the link,
Starts promisingly but try not to scroll all the way down to the last paragraph (with the employment stats charts) as it would knock the wind out of the sails of even optimistic types.
(I did cross-check by calling up a page for another subject and the charts were equally demoralising).
Thanks for replying.
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.