Should our children be allowed study philosophy as an alternative to religion in schools?

As a baptised roman catholic, I had to study religion for 12 years in school. My secondary school was run by nuns, so had I[or anyone else] chosen to reject my given faith there certainly would have been social repercussions. As philosophy also teaches us about the important virtues in life, could it be seen as a viable alternative option for children? If so, from a moral viewpoint, should children or parents make the choice?

EVERY school in Ireland is tied to a religious order.

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favourite answer

    Most students that I can think of have an aversion to R.E. as they disagree with it because they 'don't want to be oppressed by the establishment' - of course that's the more articulate, slightly hippy-ish and less profane version. In fact, it is a complete load of toss, but I'm trying to communicate the fact that half of the people in the school don't even have a valid reason - they just don't like it. And I'm yet to hear a proper or imaginative [dis]belief regarding why the atheists are so. It isn't even that the people in my classes disagree with organized religion or that they simply have not been able to manifest their faith - it is just because they feel that they have to do work on something that does not relate to them! And also, they leave out the exam questions because they're a general balanced equilibrium of reasoned argument and reasoned thinking... These are some of the reasons that I find the hypothetical idea of schoolchildren studying philosophy to be completely, and utterly ludicrous! The kind of appreciation and drive to understand would be absent in the vast majority.

    I can also envision this situation quite clearly:

    Teacher: You have the opportunity to completely drop R.E. -

    Class: WOO!OMGYAYGASM!

    Teacher: *ahem* - and take a Philosophy Class instead, taught by Mr(s). __________

    Class: ...... *tumbleweed*...... That is so gay.

    The other scenario would be that the main portion to all of every class (I'm thinking England here) would negate the R.E. course and then subsequently opt for the Philosophy course because they all hate R.E. etc, to find that the latter class would be much more taxing, the homework increasingly onerous and that they would learn nothing in this process: Hard work, not enough focus --> Distraction --> Chaos --> Unsuitable learning environment --> Teacher on heavy medication and other placeboes.

    Giving it as a general class would surely be ineffective as the prospect of activity to some childrens' torpid brains would be highly repugnant. The only feasible thing would be to develop some sort of extra-curricular course for the GAT, NAGTY and other able students, and then decide whether it should continue based on the response and demographics.

    I believe R.E. should remain the mandatory subject because, even though I do not believe in some transcendent power myself, it encourages students to open their minds to people of a different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds. Britain are getting different kinds of people all of the time due to immigration (fortunately this government seem to be handling illegal immigration a lot better than Blair's, but that's another debate for a different place) so it's essential - really - that xenophobic and cultural prejudices are eradicated before their culmination of violent, inherent racism is borne. It also involves a lot of perceptive skills and facilitates the development of good reasoning in arguments and teaches us good morals, virtue and good stuff like that.

    Philosophy is a nebulous term to cover such ambiguous branches of knowledge. I firmly believe that if a student wants to go to the library in their spare time, pursue a course in college or higher education then all credit and prosper to them, but the idea of attempting to instil it in the kind of disinterested, unmotivated people I share a class with is beyond farcical.

    The people I sit in a class with are all bright and very intelligent people - don't get me wrong, I mean some of us are the best in the school. I know how patronising and disparaging I have sounded about the people my age and their approach to these subjects... but this is because I have a true first hand experience and have been in mixed set groups before, and am therefore able to give an objective, pragmatic viewpoint on this.

    The majority would be truly disinterested, but join because R.E. is not a popular subject (of my experience, and I've had A LOT of different students from other schools verify that - quite colourfully!). They would either become bored or find it too easy - I can't see a medium - and then cause turbulence which would upset it for those who had a genuine lust for learning it. And there would be an incredible uproar from the church if R.E. in some schools was to be abolished, it is a tradition that I cannot see being broken.

    *deep breath*

    I would like parents to bear this in mind if such a situation were to ever arise.

    Source(s): I'm 14 years old, and probably need post-traumatic stress therapy or whatever due to my R.E. "lessons"
    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Brilliant idea. I think RE should be incorporated into Philosophy rather than seen as an alternative. Ultimately the government should make the choice (not likely). If the subject covers all viewpoints objectively then parents should have nothing to complain about. If they must indoctrinate their children they can do it at home.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    That's an issue for the people of Ireland to take up. Ideally, children should be learning both . . . in a religious culture, it's a good idea to have the children understand religion. However, a little rationality never hurt anyone.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Well, in my high school they offered both philosophy and general religion studies (though you did not have to submit to any religion to be in the class). I don't see why people should be forced to take religion or philosophy classes. It is a pity about Ireland, but that is how it is. If you are concerned, perhaps try writing some complaints to the director of some local schools or something.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Debra
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    The purpose of a religious school is to teach religion. That is the reason for its existence. If philosophy is to be taught it should be taught as an addition to religion not as a substitution. If you do not want your children to be taught religion they should go to a public or to a private school. By the way i am not a Catholic.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    In these troubled times lessons in Philosophy, morality etc should be on the curriculum but hand in hand with religious teachings. Some schools make allowances in the curriculum for a "third" language. I think your suggestion is more fitting.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    As far as I am concerned, both have their place, as long as all religions are covered equally and none are at any point ridiculed for their own point of view. The same goes for philosophical viewpoint ... teaching is powerful to any young, balance is everything to create a balanced mind.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Philosophy and theology can go hand in hand. Pope John Paul II wrote exclusively on both subjects.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes, I think they should. Although in America I have never had religious beliefs forced upon me at the school I attended.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Religion should be viewed as a philosophy but many theists do not want that to happen. They prefer that people blindly accept and follow religion; it is easier to control people in their eyes

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.