When a young person successfully completes their eleven years of compulsory school religious education, what will there be in their knowledge and understanding of the world and themselves that will be worthy of praise? Will they be able better to navigate the multiple religious, philosophical and cultural streams that lie around and before them? What experiences and thoughts will they have encountered that make them more curious about life and, perhaps more importantly, motivate them to imagine and contribute to the creation of a better world for all?
From the end of the 19th century and for the most of the 20th, the goals of religious education in British schools were explicitly connected with Christian morality. The subject was called ‘Religious Instruction’ and legally bound (as it still, anachronistically, is) with the school’s duty to provide a daily act of collective worship. Together, Religious Instruction and Collective Worship comprised ‘Religious Education’, and it wasn’t until 1988 that ‘Religious Education’ was identified as a separate subject that had to be included in the basic school curriculum.
Through the 1970s and 80s it became increasingly obvious that the religious demographic of the country was changing and that assumptions about the nature of Christian religious instruction in schools had to be challenged. In my lifetime, and perhaps yours, the subject has been through many iterations. In different school settings I have experienced Religious Instruction, Religious Knowledge, Religious Education, Religious Studies and even ‘Divinity’. When I became Head of RE at Frome Community College, I changed the name to ‘Religion and Philosophy’ and since then I have advocated a change to ‘Sophology’ – the search for and study of purported wisdom.
I liked the latter term for several reasons, not least because it suggested that pupils undertaking the subject might gain in wisdom from a study of the world’s treasury of belief, practice and experience. The word contains a harmonious combination of Greek words; the female ‘Sophia’ and the male ‘Logos’, thus inferring that wisdom can be found in experience, including, or perhaps especially, in women’s experience, as well as in deep, analytic thought – stereotypically, and unfairly of course - considered a male characteristic. For me, it avoids the over-cognitive sound of ‘Philosophy’ while suggesting the status of an academic discipline – an ‘ology’. Add to this, the prospect of children and young people investigating the world’s great wisdom-traditions as well as developing their own ideas of what counts as ‘wise’ and you have the potential of a really engaging, relevant and worthwhile educational experience.
Nevertheless, the idea has been much mocked, particularly by those who noticed the rather obvious similarity to ‘Sophistry’ and the ‘Sofology’ of the furniture adverts. Although I haven’t given up on Sophology (there is already an undergraduate course of study in Sophology at Loyola University, Chicago, and two RE Departments in English schools renamed themselves The Department of Sophology), there is now a new kid on the block that deserves attention.
I have now become a supporter of the suggestion to rename the subject ‘Religion and Worldviews’. The term has been attracting a growing consensus within the RE world since it was first posited by Dr Joyce Miller, a member of the Commission on Religious Education (CoRE) that recommended it in its 2018 Report, ‘Religion and Worldviews: the way forward’. The more I think about it the more I like it and here’s why.
First, it doesn’t abandon the word ‘religion’.
Although the very word is 'toxic' to many people, it seems important to me that there is something powerful in the human and public world represented by the word 'religion'; something that is not only worthy of study, but actually vital for individual, social and political well-being. We should be in no way embarrassed that religion simply must be studied if we are to gain anything other than a superficial understanding of the world we inherit, interpret and fashion. But notice that the word is singular. It refers, not to any incitement to 'religious' activity of any kind nor as a spur for learners to 'become more religious'.
Nor does it suggest a limit on the kinds of beliefs or practices that might come under its remit; rather, the word ‘religion’ quite simply marks out the territory for study and learning.
The second word in the title is ‘and’. This too is important. The conjunction implies that something quite different is coming; complementary perhaps, but not the same. If you order fish and chips, as my friend Geoff Teece pointed out, you are expecting to get two different things where one is not a sub-set of the other. On reflection, therefore, my renaming of RE at Frome College as ‘Religion and Philosophy’ was not an entirely satisfactory solution, since the overlap between the two terms is significant.
Similarly, the Welsh Government’s current intention to change the name of RE to ‘Religion, Values and Ethics’ sets up an immediate confusion: what exactly is being studied and why are these three different things? A school subject like ‘Design and Technology, however, passes the test, since there are clearly different aspects of human endeavour under investigation.
Which brings us to the third word in the new title: ‘worldviews’. Here, the plural form is used and is vital. The singular form ‘worldview’ would contain too much overlap with ‘religion’, but the plural signifies that many different forms of worldview may be studied and this means that within the field of study of ‘religion’, many different worldviews may be investigated. Thus, both religious and non-religious, institutional and personal worldviews are included. We are free at last!
No longer is the subject formerly known as RE limited to the consideration of a single religion, or even 'six major faiths in Great Britain'. Nor is the subject confined just to what 'recognised religions' are saying or have said. Our starting point is no longer what the powerful elites within certain religions would like our children to know; rather, we select from the human treasury of experience in order to illuminate, for children and young people today, the key concerns of religions and philosophies throughout the ages. Here is the opportunity to build a new academic discipline, based on the traditions of religious studies begun in the 1960s and 70s by Ninian Smart and others, that will incorporate as much wisdom from the human world as may be squeezed into the curriculum and aim to facilitate a broad and deep understanding of what really matters.
What then should we teach our children about religion and worldviews? How are we going to select what’s needed from the vast amount of available material? Let’s take the word ‘religion’ first. The Commission on Religious Education (CoRE) recommended keeping the word religion in the title of the new subject name ‘both to provide continuity and to signify that young people need to understand the conceptual category of “religion” as well as other concepts such as “secularity”, “secularism” and “spirituality” ’ (2018, p.7).
This is interesting. The suggestion is that the new subject of Religion and Worldviews (RW) should involve learners in a study, not just of what is meant by ‘religion’ but also some related concepts; and some equally complex concepts too.
I think this is an excellent suggestion. Any young person emerging from their studies of RW with a decent understanding of what might be meant by religion, secularism and spirituality will be well on the way to a successful navigation of the Sea of Faith!
For me, the word ‘religion’ in the subject name marks out the field of enquiry. The term itself is a complicated one, with a long history and fascinating etymology. Richard Holloway notes the big questions that the human animal asks, ‘What happens to us after death? When we die, is that it or is there anything else to come? If there is something else, what will it be like? What we call religion was our first crack at answering these questions’ (A Little History of Religion. 2016.
New Haven: Yale University Press. pp.1f.). So this is our first point: religion has to do with the big questions of life; questions asked by even the smallest children. These questions – and their possible answers – religious and secular – constitute one of the key areas that we will study in RW. But this is not all.
Don Cupitt offers this definition: ‘Religion, I suggest, is the complex of ideas and practices by means of which we try to reconcile ourselves to, and make the best of, life in general and our own lives in particular. Religion is about coming to terms with life and learning how to live and how to die’ (‘Religion after the West’. 2006, in Sofia, No 76, p.7). So here we have something else worthy of study: the ways in which we deal with what life throws at us. How do we cope? How to we make sense of our experience? And more, How do we make the best of it all?
Then there is the magic of story. Why do some stories become so successful that they take over the world? The most successful stories don’t have to be ‘true’; they don’t even have to be easily understood. Was Jonah really swallowed by a great fish? What does it mean? Does it matter? Or is the most important thing that people have adopted that story so that it is part of their sacred or special tradition and reveals something about a larger set of beliefs, practices and experiences?
When you look at the context of such stories, much is revealed about the people who follow the traditions in which they are set – and this too is worthy of study, because it helps us to navigate the streams of religious and cultural difference.
So too are the many artistic and creative ways in which religious beliefs, practices and values are communicated. As well as stories about meaning and value, there are paintings, music, film, drama, architecture, symbols and symbolic actions. Icons and iconoclasm – another great topic for study within Religion and Worldviews.
It is clear that where society and religion intersect – sometimes clashing, sometimes indistinguishable from each other – there lies another area of enquiry for RW. Here, there are fascinating questions of influence and power to be considered. Throughout history and most obviously in today’s world, understanding the relationship between ‘secular’ and ‘spiritual’ power is crucial in any attempt to resolve so many of the conflicts that feature in the news.
But what of religion in the future? According to the writer Yuval Noah Harari, ‘The new religion that will take over the world… beginning now to take over the world, will come from Silicon Valley’. What counts as a ‘religion’?
Football? Technology? Shopping? It’s worth thinking about this because children and young people are developing their own way of looking at the world and the influences on them are many, not least what they see on social media. A study published in January 2020 revealed that 90% of 11 year olds in the UK now have their own smartphone. But we all need a deeper understanding of where our own beliefs, values, and feelings about things come from.
What I’ve described so far marks out the rough territory for the study of ‘religion’ as it may be broadly understood, but what exactly are ‘worldviews’? According to the CoRE, ‘A worldview is a person’s way of understanding, experiencing and responding to the world. It can be described as a philosophy of life or an approach to life. This includes how a person understands the nature of reality and their own place in the world. A person’s worldview is likely to influence and be influenced by their beliefs, values, behaviours, experiences, identities and commitments’ (2018, p.4).
The Commissioners go on to distinguish between ‘institutional worldviews’ (which include traditional ‘religions’ as well as ‘non-religious worldviews such as Humanism, Secularism or Atheism’) and ‘personal worldviews’ which refers to ‘an individual’s own way of understanding and living in the world, which may or may not draw from one, or many, institutional worldviews’.
I find this really helpful, since it involves a much more inclusive approach to the study of what might count as wisdom in the world than has previously been the case in the old religious education. In particular, there is a challenge here to those schools where RE has been conducted in a narrowly ‘confessional’ way, ignoring all traditions other than that of a school’s foundation.
In fact, say the Commissioners, in the interests of equality, all pupils should be ‘entitled to experience religious education that is objective, critical and pluralistic’ (ibid, p.73). The terms ‘objective, critical and pluralistic’ are somewhat contested, but were given further weight and definition by the European Court of Human Rights in a landmark case in 2007 (Folgero v Norway). I believe it will be helpful for teachers to know that their approaches to RW, whichever worldviews are studied, will be aim to be critical, objective and pluralist, at least in the sense of not being uncritical, subjective and narrowly focused on a single tradition.
The Commission recommends a ‘National Entitlement’, that is a series of things that all pupils should be taught about in relation to Religion and Worldviews. In summary, the result should be pupils who can understand what worldviews are and how diverse they are, the impact they have, and how people with different worldviews use them to make meaning, answer existential questions and deal with controversial issues.
This is not so much about which worldviews are to be studied as ‘whether pupils have gained an understanding of the main elements of the National Entitlement, the core skills required, the range of academic approaches to the study of worldviews, the attitudes that enable them to work with others with whom they might disagree, and space to reflect on their own developing worldviews’ (ibid. p.73).
Will such worldviews as may be called ‘Christian’ be part of the new subject of RW? Yes, of course. But how many ‘Christianities’ are there?
In the context of RW, children will come to see that there are many versions of Christianity, both institutional and personal; they will understand that there may be aspects of Christianity with which most adherents can agree, but that there are many things about which they don’t; they will see something of the impact of Christianity on British history, culture and society and understand how being a Christian can motivate believers in a variety of ways, both helpful and more controversial. They will see how Christianity has changed and may change again in the future.
Other ‘major religions’ and philosophies of life will continue to be taught in RW, as will smaller scale worldviews and even aspects of widespread political and individualist philosophies, such as capitalism and hedonism perhaps, but the central aims will not revolve around a narrow and often simply descriptive understanding of a single worldview or single version of a worldview.
Rather, the depth of learning that pupils will gain will be of religion itself, and of its many associated questions, experiences and impacts. It will, in short, encourage a new depth of understanding of humanity and of what may count as ‘wise’ in the world today.
Dave Francis is an education consultant, a trustee of the SOF Network and editor of the 'Solarity' materials for Young People's Philosophy and Religion (Religion and Worldviews?) Clubs: www.solarity.org.uk