next »

[statrei]

I am not sure how we benefit from the fact that America's professors are more religious than might be commonly assumed. (http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/10/2006101002n.htm).  I would assume that their religious philosophy has some moral influence in the way they approach their work.  But I suspect that they do not allow their scientific philosophy to infect their religious journeys.  While this may be personally beneficial it works at odds to their responsibility as educators, because it perpetuates the idea that human knowledge must proceed on two opposing fronts.  Professors who embrace freedom of expression in their professional lives suddenly discard this hallowed notion in their religious lives.  As a result, while they may contribute to the personal development of their students they also negatively impact the collective development of the race.  Human development depends on a correct understanding of human knowledge and when those who instruct us believe that part of human knowledge can be advanced through the unquestioned direction of those in authority human development is bound to suffer.

[grasshopper]

it perpetuates the idea that human knowledge must proceed on two opposing fronts.  Professors who embrace freedom of expression in their professional lives suddenly discard this hallowed notion in their religious lives.  As a result, while they may contribute to the personal development of their students they also negatively impact the collective development of the race.  Human development depends on a correct understanding of human knowledge and when those who instruct us believe that part of human knowledge can be advanced through the unquestioned direction of those in authority human development is bound to suffer.

I'm a bit confused by a few points in your response, which seem to indicate a pretty unilateral understand of what it means to believe in or practice a religion.

First, why must human knowledge necessarily proceed on two opposing fronts? Most of the respondents to the survey indicated that they are religiously progressive or moderate, the results of which (if I remember correctly) correlate to the number of respondents who also indicated that they consider themselves to be politically progressive or moderate. I don't see how a progressive religious practice must necessarily be at odds with sound scholarly work, simply because it's religious. And it sounds to me like all the "fronts" are pretty lined up for these people. I highly doubt that all religious people unquestioningly follow the direction of those in authority.

Second, not all people (professors included) leave their free will and freedom of expression at the door of the Church/Mosque/Temple/Shrine/What-Have-You.

Third, I don't understand what you mean when you say that the "collective development of the race" is hampered by religious belief. Do you mean that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was hampering the development of "the race"? Or perhaps the Archbishop Desmond Tutu? Or, stepping outside of our almost-opaque Christian bubble, maybe you're referring to the Dalai Lama? The world is a big, dynamic, pluralistic place - religiously, and otherwise. You're making some fairly grandiose statements about the role of Religion-with-a-capital-R in that world that denies the lived experience of religion in a myriad of different contexts.

Fourth, if you can figure out a definition of "the correct understanding of human knowledge," please, let me know. Philosophers have been beating their heads against the wall on this one for millenia.

There's another thread on this topic on the "Meet and Greet" forum:
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,29793.0.html

[statrei]

I'm a bit confused by a few points in your response, which seem to indicate a pretty unilateral understand of what it means to believe in or practice a religion.

The confusion is to be expected since this is the most confusing aspect of human existence.

First, why must human knowledge necessarily proceed on two opposing fronts? <snip> I highly doubt that all religious people unquestioningly follow the direction of those in authority.

I don't think that knowledge should proceed on two opposing fronts.  All deistic religions believe their deity also created the universe.  If theology (the foundation of religion) is the study of the Creator and science is the study of what was created how do we justify different approaches to theology and science?  It is not enough that individual scholars do not unquestioningly follow the direction of those in religious authority because of personal convenience.  To countenance the dichotomy between theology and science is unacceptable.

Second, not all people (professors included) leave their free will and freedom of expression at the door of the Church/Mosque/Temple/Shrine/What-Have-You.

By definition you must.  If you accept the notion of heresy you do.

Third, I don't understand what you mean when you say that the "collective development of the race" is hampered by religious belief.

MY quarrel is not with religious belief but with the practice of religious belief which naturally divides us.  We have not basis for accepting the notion that a small cadre of humans are superior to the rest of us humans and are uniquely qualified to stand between us and our deity as His/Her representatives.  This is as illogical today as was the geocentric concept.  (And I speak as one who was trained for the clergy).

Fourth, if you can figure out a definition of "the correct understanding of human knowledge," please, let me know. Philosophers have been beating their heads against the wall on this one for millenia.

For starters we should agree that since human knowledge is derived from a study of an integratee universe then this knowledge should not be fragmented.  (This was discussed in a CHE article in 2004.  http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i39/39b01201.htm).  Unfortunately, we don't realize that it is this dual approach to knowledge that has caused this fragmentation.

There's another thread on this topic on the "Meet and Greet" forum:
http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,29793.0.html

I first looked for such a topic in this section. However, the focus of that thread is slightly different from mine.