To what extent do pupils perceive science to be inconsistent with religious faith? An exploratory survey of 13-14 year-old English pupils

Scientists hold a wide range of beliefs on matters of religion, although popular media coverage in the UK commonly suggests that atheism is a core commitment for scientists. Considering the relationship between religion and science is a recommended topic in the English National Curriculum for lower secondary pupils (11-14 year-olds), and it is expected that different perspectives will be considered. However it is well established that many pupils may have difficulty accessing sophisticated ideas about the nature of science, and previous research suggests some may identify science with scientism. To explore pupil impressions of the relationship between science and religion, 13-14 year old pupils were surveyed in one class from each of four English secondary schools, by asking them to rate a set of statements about the relationship between science and religion, and scientific and religious perspectives on the origins of the world, and of life on earth, on the value of prayer and on the status of miracles. The survey revealed diverse views on these issues, reflecting the wider society. However it was found that a considerable proportion of the pupils in the sample considered religious beliefs and scientific perspectives to be opposed. The basis and potential consequences of such views are considered, and the need for more attention to this area of student thinking is highlighted.

Should we be utopophobes about democracy in particular?

In his book Democratic Authority, David Estlund puts forward a case for democracy, which he labels epistemic proceduralism, that relies on democracy's ability to produce good – that is, substantively just – results. Alongside this case for democracy Estlund attacks what he labels ‘utopophobia’, an aversion to idealistic political theory. In this article I make two points. The first is a general point about what the correct level of ‘idealisation’ is in political theory. Various debates are emerging on this question and, to the extent that they are focused on ‘political theory’ as a whole, I argue, they are flawed. This is because there are different kinds of political concept, and they require different kinds of ideal. My second point is about democracy in particular. If we understand democracy as Estlund does, then we should see it as a problem-solving concept – the problem being that we need coercive institutions and rules, but we do not know what justice requires. As democracy is a response to a problem, we should not allow our theories of it, even at the ideal level, to be too idealised – they must be embedded in the nature of the problem they are to solve, and the beings that have it.

Can I be a luck egalitarian and a Rawlsian?

Luck egalitarianism and Rawlsianism have been presented as competing answers to the same question: the question of distributive justice. In this paper, I show how they are in fact not different theories of the same thing, but rather different theories of different things - different answers to different questions. I trace the history of luck egalitarian thinking and try to show why Rawlsianism and luck egalitarianism were taken to be the same kind of project. I then examine different ways that one could consistently endorse (some version of) luck egalitarianism and (some version of/elements of) Rawls' theory.

Can Rachman’s indirect pathways be used to un-learn fear? A prospective paradigm to test whether children’s fears can be reduced using positive information and modelling a non-anxious response

This study investigated whether children’s fears could be un-learned using Rachman’s indirect pathways for learning fear. We hypothesised that positive information and modelling a non-anxious response are effective methods of un-learning fears acquired through verbal information. One hundred and seven children aged 6–8 years received negative information about one animal and no information about another. Fear beliefs and behavioural avoidance were measured. Children were randomised to receive positive verbal information, modelling, or a control task. Fear beliefs and behavioural avoidance were measured again. Positive information and modelling led to lower fear beliefs and behavioural avoidance than the control condition. Positive information was more effective than modelling in reducing fear beliefs and both methods significantly reduced behavioural avoidance. The results support Rachman’s indirect pathways as viable fear un-learning pathways and supports associative learning theories.

Putting the S-word back into Sustainability: Can we be more social?

In an era dominated by climate change debate and environmentalism there is a real danger that the important ‘social’ pillar of sustainability drops out of our vocabulary. This can happen at a variety of scales from business level through to building and neighbourhood level regeneration and development. Social sustainability should be at the heart of all housing and mixed-use development but for a variety of reasons tends to be frequently underplayed. The recent English city riots have brought this point back sharply into focus. The relationships between people, places and the local economy all matter and this is as true today as it was in the late 19th century when Patrick Geddes, the great pioneering town planner and ecologist, wrote of ‘place-work-folk’. This paper, commissioned from Tim Dixon, explains what is meant by social sustainability (and how it is linked to concepts such as social capital and social cohesion); why the debate matters during a period when ‘localism’ is dominating political debate; and what is inhibiting its growth and its measurement. The paper reviews best practice in post-occupancy social sustainability metric systems, based on recent research undertaken by the author on Dockside Green in Vancouver, and identifi es some of the key operational issues in mainstreaming the concept within major mixed-use projects. The paper concludes by offering a framework for the key challenges faced in setting strategic corporate goals and objectives; prioritising and selecting the most appropriate investments; and measuring social sustainability performance by identifying the required data sources