Saturday, January 28, 2006
Faith on the Quad
This is interesting: some academic group is calling for universities to engage religion more, both as a part of the curriculum and as part of students' lives. Who knows what this will mean in practice, but as an emphasis, it seems like a positive move. On one particular note, I think it's especially promising. In my teaching, I deal a lot of with religion and thorny moral/political issues it often touches on. What I've found is that students are very reluctant to engage on those issues, largely because they think that you just can't argue about religion - and, by extension, the sorts of moral issues it touches. I think they're making a mistake in equating the truth that we won't be resolving our moral and religious differences anytime soon with the (erroneous) claim that there's nothing to be discussed. But that's how they think. You might suppose that this sort of "method of avoidance" is productive of social comity - but that, too, would be a mistake. Since religion still, perhaps inevitably, shows up in discussions, the fact that people don't have any experience in discussing religion- related things, they have no idea how to do it reasonably and with some civility. I'm not sure that most universities will do that well in fostering civil dialogue, but it seems worth a shot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
A great philosopher once wrote that philosophy must be open to the challenge of theology, and in fairness, vice-versa. But when?
Surely in science class there is no place for either. In philosophy class, seldom held, theology is irrelevant. In theology class, well, there really aren't any for those not already converted.
The central thesis is worthy: the purpose of a liberal arts education is to learn to understand our world. Christianity is certainly a big part of it. How can one consider him/her/theirself educated without knowing what's in the Bible?
I'm frequently appalled at being told what I believe (or should believe) based on a pasteboard understanding of the Good Book. Show me where it says that, sez I. Sorry, never actually read it, sez they. It's in there somewhere.
Now, it may be a Catholic thing, but I'm quite inured at this point to the disrespect, irreverence, and frequently pretty good jokes that arise when Catholicism is discussed. Religionists cannot expect any more reverence than they pay to, say modernist philosophies, which I myself find quite a hoot and disparage at any appropriate opportunity, and many inappropriate ones, too.
If religion wants its place at the table, then everything must be on it. I myself am good with that, but we must keep in mind there can be no special treatment.
I'm not sure my fellow religionists are there yet. Certainly not the followers of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
Here is a perplexing problem for anyone who would argue religion is somehow moot:
I have more evidence on hand for the resurrection of Christ than I do for the existence of something called justice. Yet, I am quite sure justice exists and is worthy of being obtained.
Hehe. From Richard John Neuhaus:
As you might imagine, I spend a good deal of time talking with reporters. I usually don’t mind it. It comes with the territory. With notable exceptions, reporters are people of good will working hard to write a story that will please their editors. It is true that they are not always the sharpest knives in the drawer. These days most of them have gone to journalism school, or j-school, as it is called. In intellectual rankings at universities, journalism is just a notch above education, which is, unfortunately, at the bottom.
An eager young thing with a national paper was interviewing me about yet another instance of political corruption. “Is this something new?” she asked. “No,” I said, “it’s been around ever since that unfortunate afternoon in the garden.” There was a long pause and then she asked, “What garden was that?” It was touching.
What prompts me to mention this today is that I’m just off the phone with a reporter from the same national paper. He’s doing a story on Pope Benedict’s new encyclical. In the course of discussing the pontificate, I referred to the pope as the bishop of Rome. “That raises an interesting point,” he said. “Is it unusual that this pope is also the bishop of Rome?” He obviously thought he was on to a new angle. Once again, I tried to be gentle. Toward the end of our talk, he said with manifest sincerity, “My job is not only to get the story right but to explain what it means.” Ah yes, he is just the fellow to explain what this pontificate and the encyclical really mean. It is poignant.
TVD>> How can one consider him/her/theirself educated without knowing what's in the Bible?
You would think that this lack of knowledge would at least lead to some level humility when confronting the topic - but it usually does not.
Actually, prior to developing an understanding of the Bible, I would be content if you could find people who had a thorough understanding of the foundations of their own worldview. There's this amazing notion out there that we can somehow be worldview neutral - that we are not on any 'side' - and that we can exist without a worldview shaping our thoughts/lives. I think those that work out their understanding of the world - a real understanding - would at that point approach Christianity with a little more humility and be more willing to consider what it has to say.
Re: Neuhaus's story of the dimbulb reporters, this is one reason I have always tried approach popular reporting about Islam critically. I've seen the hash they make of relatively simple tenets of Christianity, and I assume they're perfectly capable of doing the same to the Koran.
There's this amazing notion out there that we can somehow be worldview neutral - that we are not on any 'side' - and that we can exist without a worldview shaping our thoughts/lives.
Quite so, Mr. Huisman. And even if a neutrality could be achieved, is that what we want?
It's a current meme among modernists that we should order our society according to the dull dictates of social science statistics.
(Unless of course, it gets in the way of a good time.)
Yes, I for one am quite aware of the moralizing from modernists and postmodernists. They seem to be quite values-laden. Perhaps it goes in one ear and out the other, because as our Mr. Huisman astutely writes:
I would be content if you could find people who had a thorough understanding of the foundations of their own worldview.
What is the foundation of modernist morals? Or yours, if you consider yourself a child of modern philosophy and a rejector of both religion and classical philosophy? So far your attentive readers have only been given reports that you were raised in the Christian tradition, and that you consider yourself a moral person. Are the two connected, or have you invented a morality of your own apart from the autobiographical details you've offered?
If the latter, are others free to reject that morality or are they bound by it? Is the United States Constitution or the UN Charter to be their new Holy Book, or is your lingua franca the Bible? What is the foundation of the worldview that serves as the fulcrum of your very interesting albeit increasingly hostile posts?
(Since you wrote over the weekend that you believe George W. Bush is a mass murderer, an inquiry as to your philosophy if not your mental health is not out of order. Cindy Sheehan has been more temparate in her remarks, and she is considered by most people, even Democrats, as wack.)
Post a Comment