Teaching religion in schools

Sir, – Greg Scanlon infers that religious faith is only for what he terms the "credulous" (August 8th). The word "credulous" means willing to believe or trust "too readily." Were this its basis, religion as a school subject wouldn't have any currency.

Theology in the Catholic understanding of it, subjects faith to the prerequisites of reason and to the further enlightenment sourced in personal experience “on one’s knees”, in the practice of the faith. It has an empirical dimension. The insights so accumulated regarding the nature of being itself have not been surpassed if even matched by theories rooted in atheistic/nihilist sources.

Mr Scanlon states that philosophy “might” be a better option than theology.

Human beings are natured with the desire to know, to pursue understanding of all there is to be understood, to pursue meaning.

READ MORE

To forbid such exploration, to decline to ask all the questions, could be interpreted as fear of what one might find out. Of course some branches of philosophy seek to negate the natural human desire for meaning and truth.

On the other hand, the ultimate arché (beginning, creator or principle of things) sought by some Greek philosophers was that which was deemed worthy of adoration in a human community. There is no guarantee that the purgation of mind made possible by liberal philosophy will not stimulate temptation toward the divinity, and consequently, toward theology.

Theology, then, is a most beneficial pursuit for the liberal-minded person and worth funding by the state. Of course the believer will always experience the same levels of doubt about God as the non-believer experiences about his or her atheism. – Yours, etc,

NEIL BRAY,

Cappamore,

Co Limerick.

A chara, – It is a pleasure when those who consider themselves to be so much more rational than the majority of humanity enter debates such as the current one taking place in the letters pages of this newspaper on the topic of religion in school. Take, for example, the one by Terry Moylan published August 11th. In it he shares his views that the tenets of Christianity are "primitive nonsense" that give credence to "impossible events". It is a religion whose theology is "useless" and something that parents only wish to pass on to their children for "superstitious reasons". And, unsurprisingly, he sees the faith as being only some kind of "love-centred code of conduct" that could easily be incorporated into some kind of "general ethics course".

His unmitigated and open disdain for religion does a better job of making clear to people of faith why they would be ill-served in ceding control of the schools they have established to serve their communities than anything someone in favour of maintaining the current system might say. – Is mise,

Rev PATRICK G BURKE,

Castlecomer,

Co Kilkenny.

Sir, – Further to Terry Moylan’s letter, it is encouraging to see criticism of “primitive nonsense” about “impossible events”.

An education focused on love as compassion is sensible and progressive. It is important to recognise this is possible in a faith-centred approach, which the writer, I suspect, experienced. This empowers the students to evaluate what they learn and embrace or reject beliefs and values in tandem with their own developing critical awareness. One would hope values such as tolerance and respect would also follow. – Yours, etc,

CHRIS HORAN,

Killarney,

Co Kerry.