next »

[sibyll]

Hello all. I’m also a previously long-time lurker, infrequent poster.

The question concerning the teaching of religion and the prof’s personal religious views reminds me of a time when I was teaching Camus’s The Stranger. After class, a student asked if I personally believed in the concept of Absurdism, as I had been so passionate in my discussion of it.

I considered telling him that teaching Intro to Lit every semester was indeed analogous to the fate of Sisyphus rolling that rock back up the hill.

[invinoveritas]

So many lurkers...I feel like I've wandered down a dark alley.  Did someone swipe my wallet?

I tend to think that 'persons of faith' can teach religion objectively, but I often wonder if they usually do so.  So....do you?

I am an atheist.  I think I do a good job of hiding this from my students when I teach philosophy....I've often had students ask me what I believe about religion during the semester...so that reassures me that I hide it well (sometimes I wonder whether I should or not). 

Anyways, I think its quite easy to be 'objective' about discussing the world's religions if you don't believe in any of them.  But how do you maintain objectivity if you have faith that one is true. 

I'm not trying to start a new thread here, but how do you deal with the 'ol exclusivism/pluralism problem of religious diversity? (the most important question...I think)

[grasshopper]

I tend to think that 'persons of faith' can teach religion objectively, but I often wonder if they usually do so.  So....do you?

No, I don't teach religion objectively. (Although, I should qualify and say that I haven't yet taught a full course, just given lectures, workshops, and tutorials as a TA so far. I'll be teaching my own course for the first time this year - Very Exciting Stuff!!) I wonder if objective teaching is even possible. Even an atheist has a religious belief of sorts - that religion is something other than truth, for example. And that too will come out in the classroom and should, I think, be addressed.

But to my credit, I am very upfront with students about where I'm coming from. And I think that in some ways, this gives me somewhat of an edge when teaching "other" religious traditions, as well as Christian trads. My admission of bias opens the door to teaching students ways of recognizing their own biases. ("While this may ~seem~ a lot like Christianity (or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Islam, or whatever), it's not. And those who practice that particular religion wouldn't characterize it that way. Let's take a look at how insiders characterize their religious beliefs and practices, and compare it to how scholars from outside the tradition see it, and compare all this to popular N. American understandings of the tradition.") I find that this way of approaching religion also opens the door to exploring the multiple ways in which each religion is practiced in different places and situations.

[canadian73]

grasshopper, you make me wish i'd taken more religion classes in undergrad- that's exactly the way i'd have loved to approach it. the only religion course i took was "the psychology of religion" - much fun

[grasshopper]

Awww, shucks...

I suspect that my idealistic visions of what I can accomplish will change once I actually start teaching for real, and see what long term good (or lack thereof?) comes out of my approach. But for now, my theoretical Perfect Class is learning some good stuff.

[invinoveritas]

grasshopper,

Of course anyone can teach religion objectively...just don't guide your students to whatever you believe.  You said that you are 'upfront' with your students about where you are coming from....well, where are you coming from?  Are you a christian....buddhist?   C'mon man...be honest!

I seriously doubt that by revealing your preference you are 'opening their minds' to question their preferences.  College students are very impressionable. 

Allow some boldness on my part here.  I declare: "Any college professor that attempts to persuade their students of the correctness of a particular religious view has overstepped their position as a professor."

Education should not be proselytization.

Your job is to educate them, most college students have not figured how how to think for themselves yet, they look up to you as a professor and you owe it to your students to let them figure it out for themselves.

Sorry, but I strongly object to your choice to teach religion 'non-objectively' as you say.  You should survey the beliefs and practices of each religion and maybe get a bit philosophical about these things, but you quite clearly implied that you express to your students your 'preference' (in other words, your belief in the truth of one of them) for your chosen religion.

I doubt my words will have any effect on you. From previous experience I've found that most religious people do not want to enter into rational debate about their beliefs.  Perhaps I'm a bit prejudicial...I admit it. So, do you care to entertain the exclusvism/pluralism deabte that I previously mentioned?

[case_insensitive]

grasshopper,

Of course anyone can teach religion objectively...just don't guide your students to whatever you believe.  You said that you are 'upfront' with your students about where you are coming from....well, where are you coming from?  Are you a christian....buddhist?   C'mon man...be honest!

I seriously doubt that by revealing your preference you are 'opening their minds' to question their preferences.  College students are very impressionable. 

Allow some boldness on my part here.  I declare: "Any college professor that attempts to persuade their students of the correctness of a particular religious view has overstepped their position as a professor."

Does this philosophy apply to other disciplines, or only religion?

If I tell my students my view on ethical behaviour in business, am I overstepping my position as a professor?  I think not. I don't think sharing your views is a bad thing.  Imposing them is wrong, but sharing them is part of the learning process.  What professors haven't shared them in your experience as a student?  I wouldn't trust a professor who claimed not to have any view, religious or otherwise.

case insensitive

[canadian73]

i totally agree with case insensitive. as a lit prof, i often make my own reading of a particular text, or my own theoretical positions, clear to students, while encouraging them to develop and articulate their own.

seems the same could easily apply to religious studies.

[grasshopper]

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. It is, after all, God's day. I was at church, securing souls for the lord and saving my own.

Come on, arete1. I've read your tirades against Christianity on other forums. Do you really expect me to bite at your lightly veiled attempt to characterize me as a mindless, brainwashed, superstitious Sunday School teacher?

Well, okay, maybe just a nibble...

grasshopper,

Of course anyone can teach religion objectively...just don't guide your students to whatever you believe.  You said that you are 'upfront' with your students about where you are coming from....well, where are you coming from?  Are you a christian....buddhist?   C'mon man...be honest!

I disagree with you. I'm not convinced that anyone can teach anything objectively. Certainly not religion. Everyone has opinions on religion, even (and I can't say this often enough) atheists. Opinion=judgment; judgment=bias. If A=B, and B=C... then, sorry Joe, no objectivity is forthcoming.

These opinions and judgments don't come out of nowhere. Everyone in that classroom - myself included - has had experience with religion, in some form or another. Everyone in that room exists in a culture that frames religion within certain parameters. And everyone will have come to that class with assumptions about particular religious traditions that are derived from popular understandings of those traditions.

Beyond that, every scholar that these students will read, and every professor that these students will listen to, will also have a set of biases that inform how they approach religion. Part of my job is to help students become aware of all this.

To answer your question about my own religious beliefs, I'm Christian, specifically (radical feminist) Catholic. And if your first thought is that this sounds a bit oxymoronic, well, you're preaching (ha) to the choir.

I seriously doubt that by revealing your preference you are 'opening their minds' to question their preferences.  College students are very impressionable. 

You seem to be confusing the critical questioning of religion(s) with the questioning of personal religious preferences. I'm not here to get students to change their personal belief systems. I'm also not here to oversee some personal journey of faith and spirituality. Many students, especially from outside the discipline, take religious studies courses to get a deeper understanding of their own faiths, or to explore alternatives to their faiths. And that's fine. But holding their hands while they explore these things is not my job. My job is to teach them the skills to look at religion - all religion: their own, others - critically.

Allow some boldness on my part here.  I declare: "Any college professor that attempts to persuade their students of the correctness of a particular religious view has overstepped their position as a professor."

Education should not be proselytization.

Uh-huh, agreed.

But why do you assume that I do that? Or that I would even want to? Do you want to convert everyone to atheism? Am I to assume that students will likewise be threatened by atheist professors who might want to discredit, dismiss, or ridicule their faith? Both assumptions are silly, thoughtless, and narrow.

Your job is to educate them, most college students have not figured how how to think for themselves yet, they look up to you as a professor and you owe it to your students to let them figure it out for themselves.

Let them figure out what for themselves, exactly? How to read historical documents with an eye to seeing how they play out in contemporary religious issues? How to do an anthropological analysis of religious ritual? How and when it's appropriate to use specific methodologies when analyzing religious phenomena?  Pointing out who the "big thinkers" are in particular areas?

I think I would be doing my students a great disservice to let them figure these things out for themselves. 

I also think that you're confusing the study of religion with Sunday School.

Sorry, but I strongly object to your choice to teach religion 'non-objectively' as you say.  You should survey the beliefs and practices of each religion and maybe get a bit philosophical about these things, but you quite clearly implied that you express to your students your 'preference' (in other words, your belief in the truth of one of them) for your chosen religion.

I have a marked distrust of survey courses in religion, even upper-level survey courses. Unless taught very well, they tend to imply that "Buddhism-IS-this" and "Christianity-IS-that," when the reality is that religious traditions are volatile, changeable, and utterly contextualized.

Your "other words" are really other thoughts, and certainly not anything that would ever come out of my mouth. I don't advocate any truth claims coming out of any religious traditions. Religious studies is not about finding "truth." It's not about making faith statements. It's not about spiritual journeys toward enlightenment. It's about the study of religion. Period.

I doubt my words will have any effect on you. From previous experience I've found that most religious people do not want to enter into rational debate about their beliefs.  Perhaps I'm a bit prejudicial...I admit it. So, do you care to entertain the exclusvism/pluralism deabte that I previously mentioned?

Well, if you doubt my ability to engage in critical debate, why did you bother in the first place? Your prejudice does indeed impede your ability to enter into rational debate here. How can you hope to debate rationally with me if you've assumed from the outset that I'll be nothing but a brainwashed mouthpiece for a particular religion?

And no, I do not care to entertain the exclusivism/pluralism debate that you previously mentioned, mainly because you yourself don't entertain any exclusivism/pluralism debate. Say something about it, and I'll respond. You've just thrown a topic in the air, and told all of us RS folks to "talk amongst ourselves."

[thundering_m]

A thoughtful response, Grasshopper. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

Have to say this is the first I've heard of a 'radical feminist Catholic' but it is a good descriptor for several people I know who have multidimensional aspects to their unquestioned integrity.

What a difference to have that identity focused on who you are rather than having an arsenal focused on what others are not.

[invinoveritas]

grasshopper,

I don't have the patience anymore to respond line by line to your last post.  But I will say this:

First of all, you made many more assumptions and seemed more prejudicial than I was in your last post.  You seem incredibly defensive...I simply stated that religion can be taught 'objectively' in disagreement with you.  I stand by my point and your little argument does not work....of course everyone has opinions about religion.  This doesn't mean that you can't teach it objectively. 

Radical feminist Catholic huh?....that's makes a lot of sense...no comment....I don't even know where to begin.

By stating that education should not be proselytization, I did not assume or suggest that you did that.  It was just a statement.

And I didn't assume that you would be a 'brainwashed mouthpiece'.  I do assume that most, if not all religious people have metaphysically unsound views though...I admit that.  Your talk of 'securing souls for the lord' is proof of that.

Here's my unfounded assumption: I seriously doubt that you teach religion appropriately from what you said.  You started out by saying that you shared your religious preference with your students.  I was right in my assumption that you were christian.  You're very careful though....you now try to act as if you don't attempt to sway them towards the truth of christianity.  Well...simply by being the professor and expressing to them your belief in the truth of one of the religions you are studying, you are attempting to sway them even if you don't realize it.  Anyways, after your approach was challenged, you then attempted to defend it by claiming that no one can teach religion objectively....and this simply isn't true.   

Why don't you just admit it?

[invinoveritas]

Is it pride?  Isn't that one of those 'seven deadly sins'?

[invinoveritas]

case insensitive,

I take it you do not read very carefully.  You distinquish between 'imposing' and 'sharing' and of course there is a difference.  It all depends on 'how' you share views. 

2 points:

1. My comment clearly spoke of the ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE, which is not 'innocent sharing'; it also clealy stated this in regard to THE CORRECTNESS OF A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS VIEW.  Ever heard of the separation of church and state?

2. It is merely sophistical to attempt to change my position to being against sharing views.  You've committed a clear example of a straw man. 

Your question was a good one, but your follow up comments show your attempt to manipulate what I said.

Anyways, I think basically the same thing applies to ethics, though maybe not as strict.  I teach ethics and I point out the pros and cons of each theory we examine.  I have my favorites, but I don't try to persuade my students of the truth of, say, utilitarianism over Kantianism.  We should be teaching our students how to think, not to absorb whatever we think is the right religion or the right ethic.

[case_insensitive]

arete,

I am neither made of straw nor a man, nor am i sophistical.  Now, who's being manipulative?

No persuasion, huh?  Not even that doing the homework is a useful activity and might likely benefit them in the long run...?  Most of what we do is persuasion, now that i think about it...

I only meant to question why your line of reasoning is only applied to religion professors (and now you've added ethics professors) and not professors in other fields.  My most major error is in using (as I almost always do) way too many words in my response.  Therefore, I'll stop here.

:o)

[invinoveritas]

case,

Either you don' understand my first point, or you are choosing to ignore it.

And do you know what a 'straw man' is?