Sir, – If by "secularist", Fr Eamonn Conway (February 25th) means a way of teaching children about a selection of belief systems that make mutually exclusive claims as to revealed truth on the basis of faith and ancient books being taught to young children in an open, objective manner, than yes, it is "secularist". Rather than the Education about Religions and Beliefs and Ethics course assuming that no particular religion is true, it just does not assume that any particular religion is true. This is because of the absence of proof that any particular religion is true. Plus, by definition, they cannot all be true. If there was sufficient proof to support a particular religion, faith would become superfluous.
How does Fr Conway envisage developing a propensity for free inquiry and critical thinking in children if from an early age they are indoctrinated into one religion as if it and it alone were true on the basis of faith?
Secularism aims to prevent any religion from dominating, state sponsorship of any such domination, and religious discrimination.
So called “faith formation” is not education. “Religious education” in the guise of indoctrination is an oxymoron. Imagine if children learned about economics through the prism of communism “as if it were true”, or biology through the prism of young earth creationism “as if it were true”.
There are two ways to deal with the education/faith conundrum in an inclusive, pluralistic society – either we segregate children and indoctrinate them into mutually exclusive, competing belief systems, or we work towards creating a state education system that is faith-neutral (or both).
One of the obvious lessons we should learn looking at our world today is that segregation and indoctrination has not served our species well. – Yours, etc,
ROB SADLIER,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
Sir, – Bono once remarked astutely, when asked about his own attitude to belief in God, that if God didn’t exist it was a big deal, but that if he did exist it would be a far bigger deal.
The proposal that the default position in education should be to act and teach as if God doesn’t exist, and to quarantine the God stuff in hermetically sealed, clearly labelled isolation pods,would be to remove from education one of the most fascinating areas of questioning there is. And surely questioning should be at the heart of any education system worth its salt?
The idea that we should embrace American philosopher Peter Boghossian's take on faith as "pretending to know things we don't know", as one of your letter writers suggested (Ashley Brooker, February 26th), would be to accept a definition of faith that just doesn't speak in any real way to the lived experience of countless ordinary men and women.
I have always preferred Soren Kierkegaard’s idea of faith as a passionate commitment made in a situation of objective uncertainty. In that vision, faith communities can be arenas for the promotion of engaged and questioning citizens, and not repositories of indoctrination inhabited by bogeymen. – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN CONROY,
Windy Arbour,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – As someone who is in favour of a secular education system, it disappoints me when people use words like facts, reason and evidence as arguments against faith formation in schools. I would like to see an end to religious patronage but I do not wish for my own or any children to be taught facts and facts alone. I would like them to be introduced to great works of fiction, art, music, etc. I would like them to play games that have no obvious educational value aside from simply being good fun.
We can remove religious indoctrination from primary schools without removing imagination. – Yours, etc,
NEIL CONDON,
Dublin 4.