Teaching and Learning > DISCOURSE
Teaching Atheism and Nonreligion: Challenges and Opportunities
Author: Stephen Bullivant
Journal Title: Discourse
ISSN: 2040-3674
ISSN-L: 1741-4164
Volume: 10
Number: 2
Start page: 93
End page: 110
Return to vol. 10 no. 2 index page
Introduction and context
Following decades of neglect, the serious academic study of atheism and nonreligion is undergoing something of a surge both in the UK and abroad (Lee & Bullivant 2010). A growing number of scholars from the disciplines which intersect at 'religious studies' (including sociology, history, psychology, and anthropology) have begun to recognize the value of exploring these areas, both in their own right, and as shedding light on wider issues in the study of religions and society. In part, this both parallels and reflects growing popular and media interest in contemporary unbelief, not least, though by no means exclusively, in light of the recent and in many ways surprising rise of the New Atheism. Given both the practical and paedagogical importance of academics linking their research and teaching (e.g., Jenkins 2003; Donnelly 2006)—one of the Subject Centre's own emphases— atheism and nonreligion seem likely to be incorporated into more and more undergraduate RS syllabi in the coming years. A strong case (outlined below) can, moreover, be made for such inclusions.
In the UK, a small number of philosophy and theology programmes already offer dedicated modules on aspects of historical and contemporary atheistic thought. Notable among these are Lancaster University's 'Modern Religious and Atheistic Thought' (Level 2, 30 credit) and Heythrop College's 'Belief and Unbelief' (Level 2/3, 30 credit). While both well-established and successful modules are available to Religious Studies (Lancaster) or Abrahamic Religions (Heythrop) students, neither focuses in detail on unbelief as a concrete, lived phenomenon. In the United States I am aware of only two institutions offering modules on the sociology of modern atheism: Elon University in North Carolina, and the University of Santa Clara in California. Both of these have begun in the past two years. This article1 reflects upon the development and first presentation of a brand-new, Level 2 religious studies module entitled 'RT251 Atheism and nonreligion' (hereafter 'RT251') at St Mary's University College, Twickenham. In particular, I wish to focus upon the challenges and opportunities involved in integrating the subject within an existing, successful RS programme. It is hoped that the findings presented here will be of use to colleagues in other institutions interested in introducing elements of the study of atheism and related subjects into their own curricula, whether in the form of a dedicated module, or as part of a wider course (such as, e.g., one on 'Religion in modern Britain'). Presently, there are no other resources available to help them to do this: no articles disseminating best practice, no bibliographies of useful print and online resources, and certainly nothing approaching either the Subject Centre's 'Faith Guides', or Oxford University Press' 'AAR Teaching Religious Studies Series'. My intention is that these reflections may serve an initial starting point for the development of others' own ideas and subsequent practice. Needless to say, I would be delighted to hear from anyone planning—or indeed, already teaching— modules in these and cognate areas.
The article will proceed in stages: i) a justification for teaching this subject as part of the RS curriculum; ii) a brief outline of the principles informing and guiding the design of RT251; iii) a discussion of the decisions made regarding content and assessment; and iv) an evaluation of the module's first presentation in Autumn 2010, drawing on both my own impressions and student feedback. The conclusion will offer some, necessarily preliminary, reflections on the challenges and opportunities engendered by exploring atheism and nonreligion as part of the RS curriculum. An appendix will present a short, annotated bibliography of the small but growing number of texts which are particularly useful for undergraduate-level study of atheism and nonreligion.
Rationale
Studying atheism as part of a religious studies syllabus may seem counterintuitive, if not outrightly oxymoronic. Nevertheless there are strong reasons doing so, relevant to a range of understandings of 'the curriculum' (see Barnett & Coate 2005: 27-40). From the discipline-specific perspectives of the two I most value (i.e., 'curriculum as special' and 'curriculum as culture'), both atheism and nonreligion are significant (and increasing) aspects of global socio-religious culture. For example, one recent, conservative estimate suggests that there are between 500 and 750 million 'atheists, agnostics, and non-believers in God' worldwide. If so, then:
[W]e can deduce that there are approximately 58 times as many atheists as there are Mormons, 41 times as many atheists as there are Sikhs, and twice as many atheists as there are Buddhists. Finally, nonbelievers in God as a group come in fourth place after Christianity (2 billion), Islam (1.2 billion), and Hinduism (900 million) in terms of global ranking of commonly held belief systems. (Zuckerman 2007: 55)
Closer to home, the 2008 British Social Attitudes Survey reported that fully 43% of the population consider themselves as belonging to 'no religion' (a figure only 7% less than all the Christian categories combined). When asked if they believe in God, 18% replied that they did not, with a further 19% answering that they did not know if there was a God or not, and know no way of finding out.2 That so many people do not believe in God, and do not consider themselves to be religious, should surely be of interest to students of religion(s)—as too, therefore, should their reasons, motivations, other belief and attitudes, and demographic characteristics. (In precisely the same way, political scientists take a great deal of interest in those who have no interest in politics, and/or who do not participate in elections.) Related to this, is the fact that popular and media discourse surrounding atheism and unbelief tends to be overly simplistic and unhelpful, often focusing on the perceived 'arrogance' or 'aggressiveness' of unbelievers (depicted as a homogeneous group). Recent research from the United States, moreover, suggests that atheists are the country's least trusted social grouping, and are subject to various forms of discrimination (Edgell et al. 2006; Cragun, forthcoming). Just as other commonly misrepresented and misunderstood religious groupings, such as Muslims and members of NRMs (e.g., Bunt 2002; Richardson & Introvigne 2007), are rightly regarded as meriting rigorous and balanced treatment at undergraduate level, the same can be argued for contemporary atheists.
Finally, studying the lack of religion has the potential to shed considerable light on the direct study of religion itself. In the words of the American sociologist William Sims Bainbridge, 'Any wide-ranging theory of religion needs to be tested with evidence not only about religion itself, but also about its absence […] By learning more about the lack of faith, we can understand better the role of faith in modern society' (2005: 22). A number of concrete examples, arising from RT251 itself, will be discussed below.
Teaching atheism and nonreligion is also desirable in light of two market considerations ('curriculum as consumption'). First, atheism appears to be a relatively attractive topic for RS undergraduates. Certainly, for a new and somewhat 'unusual' module, uptake for RT251 was notably—and surprisingly—high, with over two thirds of the year opting to take it (33 out of 46).3 Unlike other specialist options, such a module seems a relatively safe bet in terms of the allocation of scarce resources (not least, the lecturer's time in planning and developing it). Given its (so far!) relatively outré status, a module dedicated to atheism and nonreligion may also help in 'setting apart' a department from its competitors. Secondly and relatedly, a significant proportion of RS students go on to train as teachers. The 2004 National Framework for Religious Education recommends that pupils have the opportunity to study 'secular philosophies such as humanism' (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 2004: 12). Such provision may, therefore, play a part (however slight) in increasing employability.
Designing RT251: the principles
From the earliest stages of its development, RT251 was intended to be both student-centred, and to foster a 'deep' approach to the subjects covered (Biggs 1999). This is, of course, the intention behind all my teaching. However, given the close fit between the module's content and aspects of my own research expertise—something which, as an early career academic, is for me a relative (and luxurious) novelty— RT251 presented a significant opportunity to realize, at least in part, these lofty aspirations. Needless to say, from the students' perspective, clear paedagogical benefits accrue from being taught by someone who is interested in, enthusiastic for, and knowledgeable about the subject in question. This is especially useful in encouraging a deep approach to learning, since the teacher-researcher incarnates the same approach to the subject that s/he hopes to facilitate in the students:
When using the deep approach in handling a task, students have a positive feeling: interest, a sense of importance, challenge, exhilaration. Learning is a pleasure. Students come with questions they want answered, and when the questions are unexpected, that is even better (Biggs & Tang 2007: 24).
To further facilitate this, the decision was taken to incorporate, where possible, elements of Alan Jenkins' framework for 'a research-based approach to student learning', in pursuit of greater—even though not perfect—'alignment between the cultures and practices of the teacherresearcher and the learning experiences and processes of students' (2003: 2).4
A second key feature of the design of RT251 was the involvement of students themselves. Indeed, 'If education is to be truly student-centred, students should be consulted about the process of learning and teaching' (Lea et al. 2003: 1). Most significantly, a formal focus group was convened in April 2010, consisting of 13 then-Level 1 students all of whom would be taking RT251 the following semester. Since RT251 was brand new, this permitted a considerable degree of scope for students to feed forward into the module's development. This is not to demean the value of feedback: indeed, this will be a key element of RT251's continuing development. However, feedback occurs only once major decisions have been made: while 'tweaking' is possible and worthwhile, more major changes require a considerable time commitment (leading, understandably, to an 'if it ain't too broken, don't fix it' mentality). Here, however, students were encouraged to give their views on a wide range of 'still-to-be-decided' issues relating to RT251's structure, content and assessment. These comments and criticisms were extremely helpful, and many formed part of the final module. That said, the focus group was intended as a consultation. Since a 'student-centred' lecturer is not a mere demagogue, I still exercised what Reynolds and Trehan refer to as the tutor's 'unilateral, intellectual authority by holding the power to make decisions' (2000: 269). This is particularly important to note given the admitted limits of focus groups, not least their obvious selection bias (i.e., the students interested enough to attend one are by no means necessarily representative of the cohort as a whole!).
Module content and assessment
RT251 is taught in semester 1 of Level 2. In the previous year, all students (with the exception of any international students) have taken the module 'Foundations in Religious Studies', introducing them to each of the 'big six' religions in the UK. One session had also been devoted, in a necessarily cursory way, to British nonreligion (exploring its various facets in light of Smart's 'seven dimensions'). No other acquaintance with the subject matter could be presumed. Rather than focus, in detail but narrowly, on one particular aspect of the study of atheism and nonreligion (e.g., the New Atheism, or humanism), it was decided instead to give an overview of different disciplinary approaches, with a particular focus on recent and emerging research. (Aside from solid pedagogical reasons for this, the general paucity of existing sources was also a factor here. Generally speaking, there are only a small number of resources on any specific topic that are suitable for the undergraduate classroom. A high proportion of these are, moreover, fairly recent.) In line with other St Mary's RS modules, it was further decided to focus primarily on the contemporary situation in Britain, albeit with scope for contrasting the (in many ways very different) American scene.
With these basic decisions in place, the 12 week module was ultimately structured as below:
Introduction:
Week One: Studying atheism and nonreligion
Historical and intellectual roots:
Week Two: 'Science' vs. 'Religion'
Week Three: Marx and his legacies
Week Four: Introducing secularization (Guest lecturer: Dr Anthony Carroll, Heythrop College)
[First Assignment set: 750-word article/chapter critique, due in on 2 November]
Contemporary atheism and nonreligion:
Week Five:Atheism/nonreligion in contemporary Britain (Guest lecturer: Lois Lee, Cambridge University)
Week Six:Atheism/nonreligion in the contemporary USA
Week Seven: Psychological perspectives
[Second Assignment set: 1750-word essay, due in on 14 December]
Week Eight: [No Lecture: time set aside for tutorials for individual feedback on Assignment 1]
Week Nine: Fieldtrip: Humanism/Conway Hall (Guest lecturer: Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association)
Week Ten: [No Lecture: time set aside for individual tutorials for planning Assignment 2]
Week Eleven: The New Atheism as an Intellectual Phenomenon
Week Twelve: The New Atheism as a Social Phenomenon
In structuring the module in this way, the intention was to lay a solid foundation in weeks one to four, exploring certain conceptual issues (not least, the various definitions and connotations of the key terms 'atheism' and 'nonreligion'), as well as providing necessary historical, social and intellectual background. This allowed weeks five to twelve to be primarily devoted to exploring specific contemporary manifestations of atheism and nonreligion. The initial draft of the module structure included more topics (e.g., 'Atheism/nonreligion in post-communist Russia'), but these were reduced to allow for two coursework planning and feedback sessions in weeks eight and ten (cf. Ramsden 1992: 71). The incorporation of the fieldtrip and guest lecturers was heavily influenced by the student focus group. These had been much valued elements of their Level 1 module 'Foundations in Religious Studies', and in the words of one:
it gives you an extra point of view. Because you [i.e., the lecturer] do your research, you know, about your bit, and then if you get someone who maybe works in the [British Humanist Association]... If you get someone like that, they can talk about another part of it.
Considerable thought went into the module's assessment, in particular, guided by the assumption that 'The trick is [...] to make sure the assessment tasks mirror what you intended them to learn' (Biggs 2003: 4). With this in mind I opted to assess RT251 by written coursework, encouraged by research suggesting that 'open, essay-type questions tend to encourage a deep approach' (Struyven et al. 2005, 330). Given the constraint of 2,500 words as the total for assessed work on a 15- credit Level 2 module, my initial inclination was to set a single essay. Two considerations persuaded me against this, however. The first is the value of giving students feedback on their work at a relatively early stage in the module. This allows students to gauge how well they are doing, and how they might improve, during the course—as opposed to how well they did, and what they should have done to improve, once it is too late (Ramsden 1992: 193). Importantly, it also allows the lecturer to appraise the quality of the students' learning (and hence, of his or her teaching), and if done early enough, to intervene. As Ramsden recommends: 'Learn from your students' mistakes. Use assessment to discover their misunderstandings, then modify teaching to address them' (ibid.: 211). This seemed particularly important given that the module comes at an important academic 'step-up': an early, short, assessed piece of work should help in 'acclimatizing' the students to Level 2. I decided, therefore, to set a 750-word article/chapter review, to be submitted in week 6, and which would count 30% towards the final grade. This offered a choice of three fairly short texts, each relevant to one of the first three 'foundational' sessions. Convinced of the value of one-on-one tutorial feedback from my own undergraduate studies—an impression supported by much of the literature (e.g., Struyven et al. 2005: 334; Palfreyman 2008)—time was set aside in week 8 for precisely this. The focus group agreed that even a five or ten minute session would be worthwhile, for those willing to make use of it.
The main piece of assessment is a 1,750 word coursework essay, for 70% of the final mark. This is shorter than I would have preferred, but is a necessary trade-off in order to (hopefully) accrue the paedagogical benefits outlined above.5 My enthusiasm for students to devise their own essay titles (just like researchers in the field typically do) was generally indulged by the focus group, and several were personally keen on the idea. Legitimate doubts were, however, raised against making this a requirement. In particular, several expressed insecurity regarding their own abilities to formulate a viable and 'proper' question (and hence project) for themselves. In the words of one focus group participant: 'Sometimes it panics me a bit more if I have to kind of think of it myself.' Some also pointed out that not everyone in the group is likely to put as much thought and effort into the process as might be desirable. Taking all this on board, a compromise was proposed which was unanimously agreed upon: while students would be actively encouraged to develop their own titles/questions, a list of pre-approved titles (e.g., one for each session) would also be provided. Students could choose whether to pick one from the list, or—perhaps emboldened by having the pre-approved as models of the 'kinds of titles' required—to devise their own, in consultation with me, and requiring my approval. For both sets of students, week 10 was set aside for coursework planning seminars and/or tutorials. This is just one example of how elements of a 'research-based approach' have been applied within the limits of a large, Level 2 group. That is, a certain amount of space was built into the module, to allow—but, importantly, not require—students sufficient autonomy to create (albeit short) projects, and perhaps even to conduct their own empirical research (an important theme in Healey and Jenkins 2009). While the latter may sound (and is!) ambitious, this may perhaps be possible for those also undertaking studies in, for example, history, psychology, or sociology. (In the latter subject at St Mary's, for example—as one student in the focus group pointed out—the creation and application of small, empirical projects is a key element in the Level 1 'Research Methods' course.)
Module evaluation
The first presentation of RT251, in Autumn 2010, was certainly encouraging. As previously mentioned, uptake was high (indeed, it proved to be the year's most popular option among all the Level 2 theology, RS and biblical studies options.) The standard of work submitted for assessment was, on the whole, fairly pleasing. No students failed the module, and there was a small number of well-deserved firsts. In the teaching sessions themselves, I was particularly pleased (and slightly surprised) at how naturally and spontaneously students drew links between the module content and current issues in wider British and American socio-religious life. A particularly fecund topic for discussion— and one to which we returned on several occasions—was the role of religion, or the lack of it, in politics. One key point of interest here was the seeming 'non-issue' of Nick Clegg's and Ed Miliband's lack of religious practice of belief for the British media and most voters, compared to—the students' own, unprompted examples—a) other politicians being viewed as being 'too' religious (e.g., Tony Blair or Ruth Kelly), b) the prominent role of overtly religious discourse in American politics, and c) the very different perception of atheism and nonreligion in Britain's not-too-distant past (e.g., with Holyoake and others in the Victorian era). The interest and insightful evident in such discussions lends support to Bainbridge's abovequoted assertion— which is itself a significant element of my rationale for studying these subjects as part of the RS curriculum—that 'By learning more about the lack of faith, we can understand better the role of faith in modern society' (2005: 22).
Not all went perfectly, however. A significant number of students clearly struggled with certain key conceptual issues. Chief among these was the varying definitions of atheism in both popular and academic discourse, and the importance of distinguishing between positive ('belief that there is no God') and negative ('lack of belief that there is') varieties. Despite considerable class time being devoted to this topic, most obviously in the very first session, the fundamental points generally failed to stick. Clearly more attention needs to be given to this issue for future presentations of the module. (The attempt at clarity on this issue is not, of course, helped by the vagaries of definition and connotation used in scholarly literature. But while partially explaining the problem, this fact makes greater clarity on the part of students of atheism all the more urgent!) The notion of a religious studies module on atheism and nonreligion clearly also wrongfooted a number of students. The extent to which an atheistic system or worldview (ranging from Theravada Buddhism and Jainism, to Comtean positivism, Marxist-Leninism and secular humanism) might legitimately be considered as a 'religion' is, of course, an interesting question, and one which was touched upon in RT251. Indeed, one of the suggested titles for the 1750-word assignment was 'Is humanism a religion?'. A handful of the weaker students in the class, however, fixated on the misapprehension that atheism itself, as a 'belief', must ipso facto qualify as a religion. This perhaps implies that greater attention should be giving to exploring the nature and definition of 'religion' itself elsewhere in the RS curriculum.
The students' own evaluation of the module was also encouraging. 6 In particular, many students felt that they had gained a deeper awareness of the varying types and manifestations of atheism and nonreligion, and had had certain stereotypes about atheists (many seemingly patterned on media discourse surrounding the New Atheism) dispelled. Five of the eighteen respondents identified the fieldtrip to Conway Hall to be one of the most enjoyable aspects of the module; eleven mentioned classroom discussions and debates (usually linked to a set text). One student further cited 'Ability and confidence to speak freely in discussion in a controlled environment' as one of the main 'opportunities to develop key transferable skills' provided by the module.
Given the level of thought put into planning RT251's assessment tasks, it is ironic—and disappointing—that the students' dominant criticism of the module (aside from difficulties in finding a big enough room in the first few weeks) concerned the 750-word chapter/article critique. This was, it may be recalled, intended to be both a non-intimidating and 'acclimatizing' opportunity to do, and receive feedback on, Level 2 work. This is not, however, quite how it was perceived at the time. Having never apparently been asked to 'critique' something before, many students—especially, as they freely admitted, those who left it rather late—felt unsure of what was expected of them. These issues were openly discussed in class, though unfortunately not before the day the assignment was due in. (Students had been repeatedly encouraged to email or visit me if they had any questions or concerns about the tasks, or any other aspect of the module.) That said, no student did terribly badly on the task, and a large number were very pleasantly surprised by their grades. (One student came to my office to apologize for—as she supposed—having failed the assignment, only to be informed that she had received a very good First.) Furthermore, once the rationale behind the task had been explained in class, the group were unanimous that it was a good idea, and ought to be retained in next year's presentation. Evidently, however (and this was the point made most often on the evaluation forms) more guidance must be given, in order to prevent a repeat of this year's wholly avoidable panic.
Conclusion: challenges and opportunities
RT251 represents a 'first attempt' in two important ways. It is the first attempt of an early-career academic at developing his own module, on one of his own research areas, from scratch. It is, therefore, very much a work in progress—and one which, as a 'reflective practitioner' (cf. Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond 2005: 214-15), I shall be refining and improving as my experience and expertise gradually grows. But it is also, of course, a first attempt to construct a module on contemporary atheism and nonreligion, drawing on new and emerging research, to fit within a traditional undergraduate RS syllabus. As such, it is emphatically not presented here as a 'model' for others to follow. Rather, it is meant as an initial point of reference for those who are perhaps considering the introduction (or perhaps increase) of these and related topics within their own curricula. If it helps colleagues only in deciding how not to design their own courses on atheism and nonreligion, then this article will have served its primary purpose. In the fullness of time, as more and more lecturers begin to teach atheism and nonreligion (in some cases, perhaps, having themselves studied it as undergraduates?) it is to be hoped that more useful and comprehensive resources will, through dialogue and collaboration, become available. Nevertheless, the maiden presentation of RT251 does indeed indicate some (moderate) challenges and (conspicuous) opportunities.
In terms of the former, there are difficulties regarding the preconceptions which students bring to the topic. Popular depictions of an 'atheist' as one who not only positively believes in God's non-existence, but who does so with a high degree of conviction (and perhaps also arrogance or intolerance), can be difficult to shake. Furthermore, the positioning of 'nonreligion' within religious studies—though necessary and justifiable—is evidently ripe for confusion. Such challenges and others do not, however, obviate the benefits of studying, in more depth than would otherwise be possible, such a significant and growing feature of global socio-religious culture—and one that not only sheds light upon, but actively interests undergraduates, and gets them thinking and talking about, crucial questions regarding the role of religion (and/or the lack of it!) in contemporary public and private life.
Bibliography
Bainbridge, William Sims, 'Atheism', Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 1/1, (2005) pp.1-24.
Barnett, R. and Coate, K., Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2005).
Biggs, John, Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1999).
Biggs, John, 'Aligning Teaching and Assessment to Curriculum Objectives', Imaginative Curriculum Project Guide (LTSN Generic Centre, 2003). Available online at: http://www.palatine.ac.uk/files/1030.pdf. Last accessed on 21 March 2011.
Biggs, John and Tang, Catherine, Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does, 3rd revised edition (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2007).
Bunt, Gary, 'Studying Islam after 9-11: Reflections and Resources', PRS-LTSN Journal, 1/2, (2002) pp.156-64.
Cragun, R., 'On the Receiving End: Discrimination towards the Non-religious in the US', Journal of Contemporary Religion, forthcoming.
Donnelly, Mark, '"Write the Book, Teach the Module": Integrating Historical Research and Teaching', (HEA History Casestudy, 2006). Available online at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/ heahistory/resources/cs_donnelly_writingteaching_xxxxxxxx.doc. Last accessed on 21 March 2011.
Edgell, P., Gerteis, J. and Hartmann, D., 'Atheists as 'Other': Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society', American Sociological Review, 71/2, (2006) pp.211-34.
Gahagan, Jimmie and Hunter, Mary Stuart, 'The Second-year Experience: Turning Attention to the Academy's Middle Children', About Campus, 11/3, (2006), pp.17-23.
Hammersley-Fletcher, Linda and Orsmond, Paul, 'Reflection on Reflective Practices within Peer Observation', Studies in Higher Education, 30/2, (2005) pp.213-24.
Healey, Mick and Jenkins, Alan, Developing Undergraduate Research and
Enquiry (York: Higher Education Academy, 2009). Available online at:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/
publications/DevelopingUndergraduate_Final.pdf. Last accessed on 21 March
2011.
Jenkins, Alan, 'Designing a Curriculum that Values a Researchbased Approach to Student Learning', Imaginative Curriculum Project Guide (LTSN Generic Centre, 2003). Available online at: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/genericlink/documents/creativecurriculumV2.doc. Last accessed on 21 March 2011.
Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D. and Troy, J., 'Higher Education Students' Attitudes to Student-centred Learning: Beyond "Educational Bulimia"?', Studies in Higher Education, 28/3, (2003) pp.322-34.
Palfreyman, David, (ed.) The Oxford Tutorial: 'Thanks, You Taught Me How to Think', 2nd edition (Oxford: OxCHEPS, 2008).
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, Non-statutory National Framework for Religious Education (London: QCA, 2004).
Ramsden, Paul, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (London: RoutledgeFalmer, 1992).
Reynolds, P. M. and Trehan, K., 'Assessment: A Critical Perspective', Studies in Higher Education, 25/3, (2000), pp.267-78.
Richardson, J. T. and Introvigne, M., 'New Religious Movements, Countermovements, Moral Panics, and the Media', in Bromley, D. G., Teaching New Religious Movements (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 91-111.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F. and Janssens, S., 'Students' Perceptions about Evaluation and Assessment in Higher Education: a Review', Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30/4, (2005), pp.325-41.
Lee, Lois and Bullivant, Stephen, 'Where do Atheists Come From?', New Scientist, 2750, (6 March 2010) pp.26-7.
Zuckerman, Phil, 'Atheism: Contemporary Numbers and Patterns', in Martin, Michael, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007) pp. 47-65.
Appendix: recent resources for undergraduate study
As mentioned above, the scholarly secondary literature on atheism and nonreligion (except in the disciplines of philosophy and, to a lesser extent, theology) is comparatively meagre. With the recent growth of interest in the field, this lacuna is, albeit slowly, being addressed.7 However, the majority of this work remains at a technical level, and is largely unsuited for use in the undergraduate classroom. This problem is compounded by the multidisciplinarity both of RS itself, and of the emerging subfield of nonreligion studies. It is, for example, unreasonable to expect RS undergraduates to read and appreciate books and journal articles written for specialists in (say) sociology, psychology, anthropology and social history. And yet data and ideas from each of these fields—if not from several more besides—may well feature in a typical RS module (like they do in RT251).
What follows is a brief, annotated notice of various, fairly recent texts, which I have either found to be useful, or am confident would be so. In almost all cases, this 'use' is applies only to parts of the whole, whether whole chapters or shorter excerpts. As far as I am aware, no book currently exists that would be suitable as a primary 'set text' (at least not for so wide-ranging and introductory a module as RT251). Where applicable, I have highlighted certain chapters which I regard as specially useful, though these are not intended to be exhaustive. NB: texts relating to topics which are already firmly established in the undergraduate RS syllabus (e.g., secularization) are not included.
In terms of a general introduction to the topic (and, importantly, to the idea of studying atheism and nonreligion as part of the RS syllabus), the final chapter on 'Secular Humanism' in Ian Markham and Christy Lohr's A World Religions Reader (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009)—which is somewhat broader in scope than its title implies—would be a good place to start. Recent years have also seen a small number of high-quality edited collections surveying the field as a whole. Michael Martin's The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) is especially useful for students considering the definition of atheism (see Martin's 'Introduction' and Jan Bremmer's 'Atheism in Antiquity'), and for gaining overviews of global demographics (Phil Zuckerman's 'Atheism: Contemporary Numbers and Patterns') and psychological research (Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi's 'Atheists: A Psychological Profile'). Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar's Secularism and Secularity: Contemporary International Perspectives (Hartford, CT: Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture) and Phil Zuckerman's two-volume Atheism and Secularity (Santa Barbara, CA; Praeger, 2010) are both strong on a number of areas, most notably their country- or regionspecific surveys (David Voas has a characteristically illuminating chapter in each: 'Secularity in Great Britain' co-authored with Abby Day in Kosmin/Keysar; and 'The Triumph of Indifference: Irreligion in British Society' co-authored with Samuel Bagg in Zuckerman). Helpfully, Kosmin and Keysar's Secularism and Secularity is downloadable for free from their research centre's website.8
Compared with other areas, the history of atheism and nonreligion is comparatively well-resourced. Alister McGrath's The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World (London: Rider, 2004) is both solid and entertaining, especially on western unbelief's political and intellectual roots (e.g., regarding Marxism and the science-religion conflict thesis). Students may also wish to reflect on whether it is premature to speak of atheism's 'twilight' (Sam Harris' The End of Faith, widely recognized as the first of the New Atheist best-sellers, was published the same year; Dawkins' two-million-selling The God Delusion two years later). More recently still, Graeme Smith's A Short History of Secularism (London: I.B. Tauris, 2007) and Gavin Hyman's A Short History of Atheism (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010) offer novel and insightful takes on somewhat familiar terrain. For psychological perspectives, in addition to Beit-Hallahmi's chapter in The Cambridge Companion (above), Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer's Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Unbelievers (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2006) provides a brief but illuminating profile of members of American atheist groups. Of particular interest, perhaps, is their investigation of the reasons and motivations given for becoming and/or remaining an atheist.
For the philosophy of humanism there are a range of helpful texts, including Richard Norman's On Humanism (London: Routledge, 2004), and Jim Herrick's Humanism: An Introduction (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005). Jeaneane Fowler's Humanism: Beliefs and Practices (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 1999) also provides valuable detail on the ceremonial and ritual aspects of contemporary humanism (e.g., humanist chaplains, humanist funerals, and baby namings). Perhaps the best and most accessible overview of the entire topic, however, is provided by Stephen Law's Humanism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
Finally, high-quality secondary literature on the New Atheism phenomenon, from a range of disciplinary perspectives, is beginning to emerge, and much more is undoubtedly underway. So far, though, the standout volume is Amarnath Amarasingam's edited collection Religion and the New Atheism: A Critical Appraisal (Boston and Leiden: Brill, 2010), offering a series of rigorous reflections on its philosophical, sociological and cultural facets. While the book as a whole is neither suited, nor intended, for undergraduate use, certain chapters can indeed be used for this (including—dare I say it?— my own 'The New Atheism and Sociology: Why Here? Why Now? What Next?').
Endnotes
- This paper would not have been possible without the support of a generous grant from the Subject Centre's miniproject scheme. Early versions of it were presented at the Centre's 'Workshop for Project Holders' at the University of Leeds, and at a School of Theology, Philosophy and History research seminar at St Mary's University College, in early 2011: I am grateful for the comments and encouragements received on both occasions. Part of the research presented in this paper also formed part of the coursework for my PGCert. in Higher Education at St Mary's, under Dr Mark Donnelly's supervision. I am grateful to him, Dr Joanna Bullivant (Nottingham), and Dr Daniel Grey (Oxford) for their feedback. Lastly, I wish to thank Dr Tony Carroll (Heythrop), Lois Lee (Cambridge), and Andrew Copson (British Humanist Association) for their advice, and for giving guest lectures as part of the first presentation of RT251.
- Data available online at: http://www.britsocat.com/Body.aspx?control=HomePage. Last accessed on 21 March 2011.
- There are several possible explanations for this. Suggestions from the cohort itself include RT251 being 'something different' to the usual RS modules; a chance to learn about 'the other side of things'; and concerned with what students felt to be a timely topic, not least because of the high profile of the New Atheism. One might also speculate that since university is traditionally a time when young people are deciding what, if any, religious beliefs they have, a module exploring atheism might appeal, 'existentially' as it were. Certainly, in the classroom itself students were not shy of advancing their personal experiences and impressions of many of the topics discussed.
- A number of important issues, both pragmatic and paedagogical, prevented RT251 being conceived as a research-based module in the full sense (e.g., based solely around the production of a piece of original research, such as a long essay or a dissertation). These include, for example, the way it was timetabled (thirteen, weekly, two-hour teaching blocks), the students' lack of previous acquaintance with the subject matter and/or training in research methods, and a large class size preventing the kind of intensive, one-on-one support required. A further consideration was its position in Semester 1 of the second year: an important transitional point, representing a significant 'step-up' academically (Gahagan & Hunter 2006).
- A different, attractive possibility—having students submit a draft version of their final essay (Ramsden 1992: 196-7) instead of a separate, though related, early task —was rejected on the grounds that, in order to be useful in terms of 'acclimatization' to Level 2 etc., students would need to have decided on their coursework topic at a very early stage of the module. Students were however encouraged to submit a draft of both pieces of coursework for formative assessment.
- Based on eighteen completed module evaluation forms, requiring the student to rate various aspects of the course on a 5-point Likert scale, and asking for brief comments.
- A frequently updated bibliography of books and articles published after 2000 may be found on the website of the international and interdisciplinary Nonreligion and Secularity Research Network (NSRN), which was founded in late 2008. See http://www.nsrn.co.uk/Bibliography.html. Last accessed on 21 March 2011.
- See https://www.trincoll.edu/Academics/AcademicResources/values/ISSSC/publications. Last accessed on 21 March 2011.
Return to vol. 10 no. 2 index page
This page was originally on the website of The Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies. It was transfered here following the closure of the Subject Centre at the end of 2011.
