Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Question of Conscientiousness and Religious Engagement in Public Schools

  • Published:
Studies in Philosophy and Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, I examine the question of how to nurture and develop conscientiousness thinkers and future citizens of diverse liberal-democratic societies from the perspective of virtue epistemology (VE). More specifically, I examine this question in terms of how public schools might frame engagement with religious perspectives in the classroom. I begin by distinguishing between good and bad conscientiousness through an exploration of current work in the field of virtue epistemology. I then follow Kenneth Strike in his defense of the need for a more robust engagement with religious perspectives as a liberal educational imperative. I argue that basing a framework for engagement on VE, particularly the notion of subjective justification, has significant benefits. My main interest in developing a framework for what I deem to be a necessary supplemental dimension of citizenship education focused on religious engagement is in underlining the responsibility that liberal educators have in regulating what is often a highly contentious and unfortunately caddish debate surrounding religion and the religious. I conclude that by eschewing this responsibility educators are potentially missing out on significant resources for supporting the liberal-democratic educational agenda.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is not to say that everyone working exclusively within their own comprehensive perspective is equitable with Hitler or even necessarily a ‘bad’ person. I am speaking here in terms of what qualities we would want to see a liberal-minded citizen of a democracy exercise in those situations (e.g., public debate) when it matters. The focus is on developing certain intellectual character traits that might support or regulate a more expansive inquiry tolerant and open-minded to alternative viewpoints.

  2. For example, those tending to scientific naturalism in epistemology like Alvin Goldman (1994) think of epistemic virtue merely in terms of qualities serving objective truth while Montmarquet, who focuses merely on virtuous motivation is wedded to no such conception.

References

  • Brooks, D. (2009). The rush to therapy. Internet resource http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=2. Accessed 1 Feb 2010.

  • Carr, D. (2007). Religious education, religious literacy and common schooling: A philosophy and history of skewed reflection. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(4), 671–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. (1994). Naturalistic epistemology and reliabilism. In Midwest studies in philosophy (Vol. 19, pp. 301–320). University of Notre Dame Press.

  • Montmarquet, J. (1993). Epistemic virtue and doxastic responsibility. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montmarquet, J. (2007). Pure vs. practical epistemic justification. Metaphilosophy, 38(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montmarquet, J. (2008). Virtue and voluntarism. Synthese, 161(3), 393–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. A. (2007). Common schools and uncommon conversations: Education, religious speech and public places. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(4), 693–708.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan Bevan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bevan, R. The Question of Conscientiousness and Religious Engagement in Public Schools. Stud Philos Educ 30, 257–269 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-010-9214-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-010-9214-7

Keywords

Navigation