What is wrong with religious education? A response to Philip Barnes

This article reviews Philip Barnes’ account of problems with religious eEducation (RE), and explores the practical implications of his position. Acknowledging his compelling logic – that RE is premised on an acceptance of all religions as equally theologically true – this article argues for optimism: with controversy and ambiguity moving to centre stage, a re‐orientation of RE’s attainment targets could focus RE curricula and provide a measure of direction for future progress. Equally, a focus on developing individual values for life in a plural democracy – where personal destinies often conflict both culturally and existentially – would likewise give RE a more potent purpose and the foundations for a normative agenda. Inspired by J.S. Mill, this article concludes that such RE may have to move beyond the classroom to achieve its potential as a critical, inclusive, relevant and progressive subject with coherent social and educational aims.     

Should we replace knowledge by understanding? — A comment on Elgin and Goodman's reconception of epistemology

Goodman and Elgin have recommended a reconception of philosophy. A central part of their recommendation is to replace knowledge by understanding. According to Elgin, some important internalist and externalist theories of knowledge favor a sort of undesirable cognitive minimalism. Against Elgin I try to show how the challenge of cognitive minimalism can be met. Goodman and Elgin claim that defeat and confusion are built into the concept of knowledge. They demand either its revision or its replacement or its supplement. I show that these are three very different options. While agreeing with the view that there may be good reasons for some revisions and supplements, I strongly disagree with Elgin and Goodman's replacement thesis.An earlier version of this paper was presented at a colloquium about Nelson Goodman and Catherine Z. Elgin's bookReconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences. It took place at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF), in Bielefeld, Germany, from 18–20 March 1991. For their helpful advice, I would like to thank Peter Bieri, Catherine Z. Elgin, Nelson Goodman, Roswitha Hullmann, Oliver R. Scholz, and Robert Schwartz.     

Clinically significant but impractical? A response to Hageman and Arrindell

Hageman, and Arrindell [Hageman, W.J., & Arrindell, W.A. (in press). Establishing clinically significant change: increment of precision and the distinction between individual and group level of analysis. Behavior Research and Therapy.] suggest adaptations to the traditional clinical significance model originally developed by Jacobson, Follette, and Revenstorf [Jacobson, N.S., Follette, W.C., & Revenstorf, D. (1984). Toward a standard definition of clinically significant change. Behavior Therapy, 17, 308-311.]. They observe that one must distinguish between analysis at the individual and group level and based upon an alternative decision-making strategy have formulated different procedures for assessing clinically significant change that incorporate the unreliability inherent in testing measures. A comparison of the traditional method with Hageman and Arrindell's suggested approach is conducted utilizing data originally presented by Jacobson and Truax [Jacobson, N.S., & Truax, P., Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12-19.] and implications of this comparison for the method developed by Hageman and Arrindell's method are discussed. Although this revised method has much to recommend it, it seems to yield results at the individual level that are quite similar to those derived from the traditional method. Given the complexity of the revised method, the traditional model developed by Jacobson, Follette, and Revenstorf (1984) still seems to be preferable.     

A response to Penrose’s “Sandel on enhancement: A response to Van Niekerk”

In this article the author responds to Brian Penrose’s critical response to his (Van Niekerk’s) article “Biomedical enhancement and the pursuit of mastery and perfection: a critique of the views of Michael Sandel” that appeared in the PSSA conference edition of the SAJP 33(2), 2014. While Van Niekerk is appreciative of the opportunity for spirited dialogue that Penrose’s response provides, he nevertheless takes issue with several charges Penrose raises. He responds to Penrose’s claims that Van Niekerk does not fully understand “the Sandel project” and thus that Van Niekerk creates and shoots down a straw man in his argument against Sandel. Van Niekerk argues that Penrose’s claims are indicative of significant methodological differences between their respective approaches. Penrose acknowledges the “fuzziness” of Sandel’s arguments with regards to biomedical enhancement. He then develops an interpretation of Sandel’s views that claims to have “filled in the complete picture” of what Sandel attempts to do, and then reproaches Van Niekerk for not responding to that “completed picture”, i.e. the “Sandel project”. Van Niekerk finds this to be an unreasonable and methodologically highly problematic demand on him. Van Niekerk responds to a number of Penrose’s arguments, and then concludes that while there are, of course, good reasons to exercise caution at the prospect of biomedical enhancement with regard to its risks, the possibilities offered by enhancement need not elicit a prima facie reaction of pessimism. Rather, such prospects can also be regarded in a positive light as an exciting opportunity to take our own evolution in hand.     

Cochlear implants and the claims of culture? A response to Lane and Grodin

Because I reject the notion that physical characteristics constitute cultural membership, I argue that, even if the claim were persuasive that deafness is a culture rather than a disability, there is no reason to fault hearing parents who choose cochlear implants for their deaf children.     

Which God? What Power? A Response to Andrew H. Gleeson

Andrew H. Gleeson has written an essay commenting on an exchange between Dewi Z. Phillips and me, arguing that I was mistaken to dismiss Phillips’ criticism of the standard definition of omnipotence as unsuccessful. Furthermore, he charges Swinburne, me, and analytic theists in general, with an excessive anthropomorphism that obliterates the distinction between Creator and creature. In response, I contend that all of Gleeson’s criticisms are unsound.     

Religious literacy or spiritual awareness? Comparative critique of Andrew Wright’s and David Hay’s approaches to spiritual education

On the basis of a comparison of the educational approaches of Andrew Wright and David Hay this paper illustrates the persisting problem of dichotomising cognitive and trans‐cognitive aspects of spiritual development and education. Even though both Wright and Hay speak of the same topic – spirituality and spiritual education – they define these terms very differently, and as a consequence, they draw altogether different practical implications, set different priorities, and warn of different dangers in spiritual education. The main question set in this paper is whether it is possible to make room in spiritual education for both of these perspectives and how to combine them in a more holistic way. With the help of the Wilber‐Combs lattice, which is one of the main heuristic devices employed by the integral philosophy, one possible way toward integrating cognitive and trans‐cognitive aspects of spritual development and education is proposed.     

What,why, and whence logic? A response to the commentators

This article presents our response to the four commentators. Specifically, the article aims to further justify the method we employed to show the logical autonomy of the various thought domains described by our theory, to explain the role of logic in cognitive development and to elaborate on the factors affecting its development.     

One concept or two? A reply to Raine

It is suggested that Raine's criticisms of the paper by Barbour-McMullen, Coid and Howard rest on misconceptions, particularly regarding the nature of the supposed conceptual dichotomy between “North American” and “European” concepts of psychopathy. Several points of clarification are offered. It is maintained that psychopathy is indeed a dual, rather than a unitary, concept.     

Is agoraphobia harder to treat? A comparison of agoraphobics' and simple phobics' response to treatment

Agoraphobia is reputed to be more difficult to treat than simple phobia. In a test of this supposition, 38 agoraphobics and 19 simple phobics were each given 10 sessions of graduated in vivo exposure. They were assessed before and after therapy using a behavioral avoidance test, behavioral diaries, and self-report measures. Analysis of covariance revealed unequivocal posttest differences only on self-assessed disability level; agoraphobics had changed less in their report of global disability immediately following treatment but not at follow-up. Sixty-eight percent of the simple phobics showed clinically significant improvement on avoidance of the Main Phobia, compared with 34% of the agoraphobics. On three other outcome measures, including more precise behavioral measures of phobia, agoraphobics and simple phobics responded equivalently to treatment. Given clinicians' impression about the comparative difficulty in treating agoraphobic clients, fewer differences in treatment response were obtained than were expected. Several possible explanations for this discrepancy are discussed.     

Three approaches to religious education at Key Stages one and two in Wales: how different are church schools?

Survey data provided by 361 headteachers regarding religious education provision at Key Stages one and two within schools in Wales are modelled to distinguish between three main approaches to religious education, characterised as concerned with spiritual development, world religions, and Christian nurture. No differences in emphasis on these three approaches are found between non‐denominational schools and Church in Wales voluntary controlled schools. In Church in Wales voluntary aided schools greater emphasis is placed on the spiritual development dimension and on the Christian nurture dimension. In Roman Catholic voluntary‐aided schools greater emphasis is placed on the spiritual development dimension, greater emphasis is placed on the Christian nurture dimension, and less emphasis is placed on the world religions dimension.     

What's the problem? A response to "secular humanism and scientific psychiatry"

Notwithstanding the interest and importance of Szasz's position, it neglects the phenomena, the real problems which take people to the clinic seeking treatment, and the conditionality of the notion of individual responsibility.