Skip to main content

Draft for comments

For OUP humanism book.

This is VERY VERY rought first draft. Many slips I know.


A colleague of mine once told me that, as a pupil of a Catholic school in 1960’s Britain, she once asked in class why the use of contraceptives was morally wrong. She didn’t expressing disagreement with the view – merely asked what the justification for it was. As a result, she was sent to the headmaster, who asked her why she was obsessed with sex. The culture her school fostered, so far as moral and religious education was concerned, was one of deference to authority – of passive, uncritical acceptance of religious dogma. This colleague, no longer Catholic, added that, even today, more than half a century later, she still finds herself feeling guilty if she dares to question a Catholic belief. Her upbringing was highly effective not only in censoring her, but in getting her into the habit of censoring herself. That disposition was so-deeply ingrained in her that it survives to this day, long past the point where religious belief ceased.

Many religions have, historically, encouraged such unquestioning, deferential attitudes among the faithful. In some cases, they still do. However, it is not only the religious that have been guilty of straight-jacketing young minds in this way, atheists stand guilty too. Under the totalitarian regimes of Stalin and Mao, for example, certain political dogmas had to be accepted without question.

Broadly speaking, humanists favour a liberal approach to moral education, an approach that emphasizes individual moral responsibility. In chapter XX I presented an argument that our individual responsibility for making moral judgements is unavoidable, an inevitable part of the human condition. It is our individual responsibility to make our own moral judgements, rather than attempt to hand that responsibility over to some external authority – such as a religion or political leader – that will make those judgements for us. Like or not, each one of us must shoulder that responsibility ourselves.

But if that is true, then shouldn’t we ensure raise young people in such a way that (i) they recognise they have this individual responsibility, and (ii) ensure they have the kind of intellectual, social, emotional and other skills they will need to make the best judgements they can? These are certainly the hallmarks of a humanist approach.

So humanists are typically opposed to those traditional, religious approaches to moral education that present morality as a set of facts handed down by authority that individuals must more or less unquestioningly accept. But they are no less opposed such “educational” techniques when employed by, for example, atheist totalitarian regimes.

So what alternative do humanists recommend? Many religious people appear to think that the alternative to traditional religious indoctrination is to abandon children to invent their own morality from scratch, tell them that every moral point of view is as valid as every other, and allow them to do whatever they like. However, this would be a caricature of the kind of moral and religious education that most humanists advocate.

Note, first of all, that encouraging children to think and question does not require that we abandon rules and discipline. What humanists advocate in the classroom is freedom of thought, not freedom of action. No doubt children need discipline and they need good habits drilled into them. But even while we enforce rules, we can still allow them the opportunity to question those rules and express disagreement.

Secondly, note that encouraging children to think and question does not mean that we cannot explain to them what we believe, and why we believe it. In fact there is no reason why a faith school promoting a particular religion should not encourage its pupils to think and question. Its teachers may say: “This is what we believe, and these are the reasons why we suppose these beliefs are true. While we might want you to believe it too, we don’t want you to just take our word for it. We are encourage you to think and question and make up your own minds.” Humanists will no doubt want to persuade their children of the truth of their humanist views, but they won’t want children to accept those views passively and unquestioningly.

Thirdly, note that a humanist approach does not involve telling children that every moral point of view is as correct as every other – they are all equally “valid”. In fact, a humanist approach stands in opposition to that kind of moral relativism. For if every moral point of view were as correct as every other, then would be no point in thinking about moral issues, for the view you ended up at would be no more true than the one you started with. Thinking would be a pointless waste of time. But of course, humanists suppose that, far from being a waste of time, thinking and reasoning can help us figure out what really is, and isn’t true.

Philosophy in the classroom

There is no specific humanist “method” of morally educating new citizens. All sorts of techniques might be employed to encourage young people to start thinking about moral issues. We should acknowledge, of course, that the kind and level of educational activities we promote will have to be geared to age and ability.

One sort of particular activity which has been tried in classrooms with some success is “P4C” or “philosophy for children”. In encouraging children to think critically and independently about moral issues, we are, of course encouraging them to think philosophically. There is, as we have seen, a rich and long secular, philosophical tradition on which we might draw in looking for resources to help us morally educate new citizens. However, teaching children philosophy doesn’t necessarily have to take the form of educating them about that tradition – about which philosopher said what, and why (such a history of ideas would probably only be suitable for, or even of interest to, much older children). P4C, by contrast, involves bringing children together in groups in which they engage in structured debate some particular philosophical conundrum (often chosen by themselves). This kind of activity has tried across the entire age range, and it has had measurable benefits.

For example, in 2001-2, the psychologist Professor Keith Topping, in conjunction with the University of Dundee, studied the effects on introducing one hour per week of such a philosophy programme at three primary schools in Clackmannanshire. Teachers were given two days of training. The study involved a whole range of tests, and also a control group of schools without any philosophy programme. This study found that after one year,

• The incidence of children supporting opinion with evidence doubled, but ‘control’ classes remained unchanged.
• There was evidence that children’s self-esteem and confidence rose markedly.
• The incidence of teachers asking open-ended questions (to better develop enquiry) doubled.
• There was evidence that class ethos and discipline improved noticeably.
• The ratio of teacher/pupil talk halved for teachers and doubled for pupils. Controls remained the same.
• All classes improved significantly (statistically) in verbal, non-verbal, and quantitative reasoning. No control class changed. This means children were more intelligent (av. 6.5 IQ points) after one year on the programme.

When the children were tested again at 14, after two years at secondary school without a philosophy programme, their CAT scores were exactly the same (i.e., the improvements previously been gained were retained), while the control group scores actually went down. Three secondary schools were involved and the results replicated themselves over each school.

Of course this is just one study and its results might be questioned, but there is a growing body of empirical evidence that this kid of philosophical activity does have measurable social, intellectual and emotional benefits for children. It produces not just intellectually, but also socially, emotionally and ethically more aware and sophisticated individuals.

For example, when Buranda State School, a small Australian primary introduced into all its classes a philosophy program along similar lines. It reported “significantly improved outcomes” occurred in the social behaviour of the students:

The respect for others and the increase in individual self esteem generated… have permeated all aspects of school life. We now have few behaviour problems at our school (and we do have some difficult students). Students are less impatient with each other, they are more willing to accept their own mistakes as a normal part of learning and they discuss problems as they occur. As one Yr 5 child said, ‘Philosophy is a good example of how you should behave in the playground with your friends’… Bullying behaviour is rare at Buranda, with there being no reported incidence of bullying this year to date. A visiting academic commented, ‘Your children don’t fight, they negotiate’… Visitors to the school are constantly making reference to the 'feel' or 'spirit' of the place. We believe it's the way our children treat each other. The respect for others generated in the community of inquiry has permeated all aspects of school life.

Similar benefits are now being recognized by British Government school inspectors. For example, a 2001 report on Colby Primary School in Norfolk, said:

A strength is the teaching of philosophy and thinking skills. In these lessons, pupils learn to listen, consider, and respond in a mature way to the ideas of others. This work is taken to a high level and clearly has a positive impact on children’s work across the curriculum, giving them confidence to speak and discuss ideas.

Of course, those who suspect their own religious faith might not survive early exposure to such independent, critical thought are likely to find all sorts of excuses for protecting their own religious beliefs from such scrutiny for as long as possible. “Thinking and questioning is all very well”, they may say, “But not too early and not too much – that’s a bad thing.”

The evidence, however, suggests that it is rather a good thing. Do we really want children to miss out on such educational benefits because we feel we must respect their parents’ right to indoctrinate their offspring mindlessly in a particular religion?

Faith schools

Humanists differ in their attitudes to faith schools. Some believe that faith schools should no longer be tolerated. They may argue that, if we are not going to allow, say, political schools that select on the basis of political beliefs, begin each day with the collective singing of political anthems, have portraits of political leaders on classroom walls, and promote party-political views (which, surely, would constitute a threat to any healthy democracy), then why should we tolerate their religious equivalents (particularly as many religious beliefs have a political dimension).

However, other humanists are prepared to allow faith schools, just so long as those meet certain minimum standards. They may suppose, for example, that even independent faith schools should encourage children to think and question, should expose children to a range of religious and non-religious views (preferably articulated by those who actually hold them), should make it very clear to every pupil that what religious beliefs they hold is a matter of their own free choice. Currently, many British schools fail to meet these standards.

Most humanists will, of course, oppose the state-funding of religious schools. Their secularist commitments lead them to suppose that there is no justification for the state giving religious beliefs a privileged educational status.

A further reason to embrace a humanist approach

Here is a further reason why encouraging a questioning attitude, rather than deference to authority, might be a very good idea. Professor Jonathan Glover, Director of the Centre for Medical Law and Ethics at King’s College, London, conducted research into the backgrounds of both those who joined in the killing in places like Nazi Germany, Rwanda and Bosnia, and also those who worked to save lives. As Glover explained in an interview in The Guardian,

If you look at the people who shelter Jews under the Nazis, you find a number of things about them. One is that they tended to have a different kind of upbringing from the average person, they tended to be brought up in a non-authoritarian way, bought up to have sympathy with other people and to discuss things rather than just do what they were told.

Glover adds, “I think that teaching people to think rationally and critically actually can make a difference to people’s susceptibility to false ideologies”.

In The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe, Samuel and Pearl Oliner report the results of their extensive and detailed study into the backgrounds of both those who went along with the Final Solution and those who rescued victims. The found that the most dramatic deference between the parents of those who rescued and those who did not lay in the extent to which parents placed greater emphasis on explaining, rather than on punishment and discipline.

[P]arents of rescuers depended significantly less on physical punishment and significantly more on reasoning.”

[I]t is in their reliance on reasoning, explanations, suggestions of ways to remedy harm done, persuasion, and advice that the parents of rescuers differed from non-rescuers.

According to the Oliners, 'reasoning communicates a message of respect for and trust in children that allows them to feel a sense of personal efficacy and warmth toward others.” The non-rescuers, by contrast, tended to feel “mere pawns, subject to the power of external authorities”. Oliners also report that, while religious belief was also a factor, “religiosity was only weakly related to rescue”.

If we want to raise the kind of citizens that will resist the slide into the kind of moral catastrophes that marred the 20th Century, it seems that our focus should indeed be in moral education. But not of the traditional, authority-based religious sort. Our focus should be on raising independent, critical thinkers.


Mike said…
Another interesting chapter. I was especially struck by the description of the "P4C" programs. One thing: My own sense is that faith-based education is not only an inferior approach to moral education (which seems to be what you are saying here) but that it is itself immoral. The ability to reason is humankind's principle survival mechanism. To willfully impede its development in the most vulnerable of people is wrong. Imagine a child is about to cross the street. Would anyone say, "Don't look both ways. Look straight ahead and have faith."
Andrew Louis said…
I'm sure that at some point you'll get this, but I'm curious...

What grounds a morally bad vs. a morally good action from a humanist perspective?

In your previous post, you stated that [paraphrase], 'being continuously injected with a happiness drug may not be a particularly worthwhile existance'. And perhaps implicit in that is the idea that it may not be particularly meaningful either.

This, however, begs the question as to what standard one uses to make such judgements.

Is it the authority of reason? Clearly you reject moral relativism, (which I'd agree with), and since we'd agree it's not relative, then what is it? Is it absolute? Is it contingent (and contingent upon what)?

It just seems to me that another dogma is being built up to replace an old one.
anticant said…
"Our focus should be on raising independent, critical thinkers."

But you can't do that! You would destroy the Abrahamic (and other) religions.

I'm just reading "The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs: Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth" by Solomon Schimmel - quite fascinating!

It's available from Amazon:
Mike said…
I'm happy to see someone recommending Solomon Schimmel's book. I concur -- it is very fascinating. As a Judaic scholar and professor of psychology, Schimmel brings a lot of expertise to the subject. I attended a talk he gave last year at Harvard, and he joked about all the time he had spent researching and writing a book "no one will read." Glad to hear that on that point, anyway, he was wrong.
wombat said…
Firstly, it seems that, in the UK at least, many parents are very keen on getting their children into faith based schools even if they do not themselves actively practice or even espouse the faith concerned. Many are simply lapsed religionists who still like the idea but, of the atheists, many seem to think that their children will receive a better education and this presumably outweighs any fear they have of "indoctrination". The choice seems to be supported by academic results and lesser discipline problems. There appear to be strong arguments in favour of faith based education (i) parents choose it (ii) it appears to work.

Secondly, faith based schools would also seem to span a huge range, from extreme rote taught madrassas to CofE academies staffed by John Polkinghorne clones. How then to address the "but that's not the sort of faith based education we mean" line from its defenders?
Tony Lloyd said…
I've been flicking through "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism". There is an intersting claim in the preface:

"Bolshevism is not merely a political doctrine; it is also a religion, with elaborate dogmas and inspired scriptures. When Lenin wishes to prove some proposition, he does so, if possible, by quoting texts from Marx and Engels"

This chimes in with your comment about Stalin and Mao and rather suggests that it isn’t the particular metaphysical commitments of the schools but authoritarian dogmatism. Of which religion seems to be just a subset: “citizenship” classes, for example, seem to have descended into attempted “progressive” indoctrination.

So you could delete “and religious” from the title and rework the first paragraph a little. Maybe talk about authoritarianism first and only bring in religion later in the role of one of the ways of being authoritarian. Otherwise the book does begin to be a wee bit “why theism sucks” rather than “why humanism is fab”.
I wish to Thor I had been exposed to some philosophy and moral education during my time being taught (but not reared) by Irish Christian brothers. Makes me recall a true story I am fond of retelling:

The story relates to a 13 year old boy who lived in St. John's, Newfoundland. He was a confirmed Anglican who had never really shown much interest in Christianity. His parents divorced and his father remarried a Roman Catholic. Prior to the marriage, the boy's father had converted to Catholicism and urged his son to do the same. The son was reluctant but agreed to study the tenets of the faith, everything from transubstantiation to papal infallibility and nearly everything in between (the 13 year old was quite "gifted" and had not yet sustained the series of rugby concussions that left him dumb as a post in adulthood).

As part of the process leading up to the intended conversion, the father set up a meeting between the son and a Roman Catholic priest. The meeting lasted about an hour and would undoubtedly be a viral sensation if it had been taped and could now be posted on youtube. After the meeting, the priest's face was ashen and he looked like he was going to throw up. This kid had raised more questions about his faith in a single hour than 30 years of theological training, contemplation and reflection.

The priest left the priesthood shortly thereafter and is now a happily married father of three.

The son didn't convert but was enrolled (against his will) in a Catholic boys' school. He went on to win the Grade 12 prize in religion. He is also a happily married father of three.

The son also went on to become The Atheist Missionary.
Michael Young said…
As another empirical study of interest on P4C-- this one a meta-analysis which analyzed a number of different studies -- see:

Research Papers in Education, Vol. 19, No. 3, September 2004, a piece titled:

'Philosophy for children': a systematic review

By S. Tricky & K.J.Topping.

From the abstract:

"This paper offers a systematic critical review of controlled outcome studies of the 'Philosophy for Children' (P4C) method in primary (elementary) and secondary (high) schools. Ten studies met the stringent criteria for inclusion, measuring outcomes by norm-referenced tests of reading, reasoning, cognitive ability, and other curriculum-related abilities, by measures of self-esteem and child behavior, and by child and teacher questionnaries. All studies shows some positive outcomes. The mean effect size was 0.43 with low variance, indicating a consistent moderate positive effect for P4C on a wide range of outcome measures..."

The authors come out recommending P4C as a good value for the money, although, obviously, their focus is not on shaping a certain sort of morally-engaged citizen as such.
Stephen Law said…
AM - your first convert was a Catholic priest? Quite an achievement!
That is a true story - I swear to Thor.
wombat said…
Don't know if this is suitable but I'll throw it in anyway.

Robert Lifton identifies 8 themes which he argues are characteristic of totalitarian regimes (I have cut these down a bit as I am a lazy typist!)

1. Milieu control - control of individuals communication with the external world.

2. Mystical manipulation - Evoking certain patterns of behaviour in such a way that they seem to be spontaneous

3 - Demand for purity - The belief that elements outside the chosen group should be eliminated to prevent them contaminating the minds of group members.

4. The cult of confession .

5. Sacred Science - Viewing the ideologies basic dogma's as both morally unchallengeable and scientifically exact, thus increasing their apparent authority.

6. Loading the language - use of 'thought terminating cliches'

7 The primacy of doctrine over person

8. The dispensing of existence.

[Lifton R. J.(1961) Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism; a study of 'brainwashing' in ChinaGollancz]

Many of these can be present in schools except hopefully (8). Kathleen Taylor discusses these at some length in her book and concludes that critical thinking is a preventative measure for most of them. ( e.g. pp61-65, 247-268 )
P4C seems to fit the bill.

["Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control" Taylor K. (2004) OUP ]
Stephen Law said…
Thanks for the comments- v helpful. I cite K. Taylor in the War For Children's Minds, from which I am drawing here. I have ordered Schimmel book (it sounds worryingly like the one I am doing next).

Louis - the grounding issue is covered in the morality chapter here:
Paul P. Mealing said…
That’s a great story TAM – I ‘dips me lid’ as we say in Oz. I was 16 before I started arguing with my Anglican minister, but not with the same effect that you had.

I’ve long believed that we should teach philosophy in school, but I was thinking high school, rather than primary school. Nevertheless, the examples that Stephen gives, including one from Australia that I didn’t know about, are good arguments for teaching critical thinking at primary school age.

The scenario that you relate in your intro, Stephen, I believe was played out all over the Western world in the 1960s, when there was a cultural sea change amongst the youth, of which I was one very small player. We did start to question everything – it was the zeitgeist of the adolescent world at the time.

In regard to people accepting authority, you must surely be aware of the famous Milgram experiment performed at Yale University in 1963, resulting in 65% participation to the extreme end of the experiment (delivering electric shocks to an unknown and unseen subject for answering questions wrongly). What is lesser known is that this experiment was consequently performed in many Western countries with variable results, some of which reached 80% and 90% (Introduction to Social Psychology by Vaughan and Hogg, 1998). This is not a reflection of the lack of morality, by the way, but of the cultural acceptance of authority figures, which varied from country to country.

Regards, Paul.
Mr Weng said…
I always here of these shocking examples from the Catholic system. The Lutheran schools have around a 75% or more non-Christian enrollement and are very sensitive to allow for other ideas and beliefs. Teaching philosophy in the RE classes is quite acceptable. Some Christian teachers even send their kids to the public system. We all value critical thinking.You writings assume there has to be an A side vs a B side. Is there no middle ground?

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o