next »

[chronicle_moderator]

In an essay in this week's Chronicle Review, Stephen Prothero says that most Americans are profoundly ignorant about religion and that such religious illiteracy is dangerous. He writes, "In an era when the public square is, rightly or wrongly, awash in religious rhetoric, can one really participate fully in public life without knowing something about Christianity and the world's other major religions?" Prothero argues that colleges and universities should require a religious-studies course of all undergraduates. Do you agree that this is a good direction for colleges? Read more...

[husqvarna]

I think good points were made in this article, but I am also nervous about the (in)ability of places like Harvard to address religion adequately.  Fact/value and public/private distinctions can easily oversimplify the issue, and I have seen this both in the proposal for Harvard's course requirement and the arguments against the proposal.

This oversimplification is the problem that introducing religion courses intends to solve, of course, but the question is how to educate students when the "experts" themselves are facing somewhat of a crisis of misknowledge.  Just look at the multitude of competing and contested approaches present in the AAR- this can be seen as a blossoming of creative research, but more realistically it demonstrates an inability to deal with whatever is meant by the signifier "religion", precisely because of the distance created by observation and research.

Prothero is right to push this issue.  I am simply pessimistic about our current ability to deliver.

[loren_wingblade]

Stephen Prothero's article on should colleges require religious-studies courses so far has had only one response!

First of all a liberal arts education should give students some cultural literacy with their culture and others.  As the world shrinks, to be cultural illiterate is dangerous.  How can one understand current events?

Second, many of our great ivy-league universities started out as theological seminaries (and some still maintain them).  I suppose academics are afraid that the right-wing conservatives would dictate the curriculum (or at least influence it).  I doubt this would occur.

Third, my students are not as religious illiterate as Stephen Prothero indicates his students are. Instead, I find in my students, on occasion, a tremedous thirst for knowledge concerning religion. I blame the churchs of all demoninations for just giving their congreations just a thin veneer of knowlege.  Does this mean that colleges and universities should make up the deficit?  I am not sure.  I teach sociology and we discuss religion in broad terms.  But when my students ask me my personal opinion, I express it.  We often experience in class quite a give and take in discussion on the topic.

Fourth, religious beliefs are often codified into state and local laws.  How can students know what legislators are trying to accomplish when their knowlege of religion is so impoverished?  Religion also forms the basis of norms, folkways, and mores within the culture.  Knowlege of religion here is also essential to understand current and past customs.

Now, this is a strange admission from an academic.  I have many unusual hobbies.  I have taught a course in paranormal activity.  I have taught a course in non-verbal communication.  I have also investigated Bible prophecy (which most churches ignore).  My students ask me about this sometimes.  I don't boast about it, nor do I hide it.  We are supposed to be teaching inquiring minds floating on a sea of ignorance.  I never push my views onto anyone.  But when my studets ask, I tell them what I believe and why.  Now such a hypothetical religious course would have to start with the very general and work toward the specific and the students' requests.  The course should have a general framework and then afterward be guided by what they want to know.  Loren Wingblade

[gesualdo]

I think it will be difficult to implement such a requirement because the courses are bound to become equal-opportunity offenders.  For example, Christians often are very blind in their faith and will take anything that appears negative (think Spanish Inquisition) with offense.  Not to mention, it's difficult to place Christianity (or likely any other religion) in one bubble because there are so many different beliefs within it.  Even the facts can be misconstrued to represent beliefs only a small portion of the population subscribes to.

[adjunk]

I agree wholeheartedly with the article.  We claim to be preparing students to enter into a global community, yet we provide them with little to no knowledge of the religious faiths that shape our global community in so many ways--culturally, politically, economically, etc.  At my (secular) college, however, we long did away with a theology department and regrettably have not even one theology professor on staff, and the same was true at my previous (secular) college.  I'm afraid that putting such a course on the syllabus is easier said than done because of the money it would take to hire the theology faculty needed to teach it.

[engineer_adrift]

We manage to have political science courses and departments without requiring consensus on what political philosophy or party is 'best'.  (At least, I hope that is still true.) 

I think there is a case to be made to teach world religions as part of a general cultural literacy requirement.

Best
Dave Olwell

[invinoveritas]

I agree that colleges should require some kind of 'religions of the world' course.  It is sad but telling that "most Americans are profoundly ignorant about religion " as the original poster noted, especially since most Americans are religious.  I teach philosophy and questions about religion easily arise within many class discussions.  I find that most of my students are devout Christians, yet they have little if any knowledge of what other religions believe.  They are especially ignorant about science too (perhaps this is a bigger problem?).

Some reponses to other posters...

Adjunk (love the handle):  Yes...but you do not need 'theology' faculty to teach such courses.  Perhaps I'm biased, but I think philosophy professors would do a better job (and they're already on the payroll).  Philosophy professors often come equiped with a good knowledge of religious beliefs and practices and are qualified to critically analyze anything.  Religious claims are philosophical claims....some more defensible than others.  Philosophy professors also study the history of thought and religion is a part of that history.  Plus....you are more likely to get an 'objective' view of religion from a philosopher than a theologian (I can hear the objections already....but let's face it....most 'theologians' are religious and I think that few would treat all religions fairly and objectively).

Wingblade: good points..I agree

hvernon:  I understand some pessimism here, but I think you are mistaken to doubt 'Harvard' as an 'adequate institution' to teach religion.  Is Harvard too 'liberal' an institution for you?  Do you think the faculty there might persuade students to look at religion for what it really is?  Perhaps I'm being a little presumptuous here, but it sounds like you harbor some fear that if all the religious cards are put on the table then people might actually judge it accordingly.  Is there something wrong with that?  What makes you think it would be 'oversimplified'?  Frankly, I doubt the crisis of 'misknowledge' that you speak of.  Yet, I think you have raised an important question, namely, HOW should it be taught?  My answer?  It should be taught as objectively as possible...and I think philosophy professors are generally the most apt in this regard...history profs a close second.  As long as there is no 'proselytizing' in the classroom which would probably be more common among theologians....

[spork]

Students should be getting this information in history (historical development of religions) and science (why religious belief is not the same as the scientific method) courses, but are not.

[husqvarna]

hvernon:  I understand some pessimism here, but I think you are mistaken to doubt 'Harvard' as an 'adequate institution' to teach religion.  Is Harvard too 'liberal' an institution for you?  Do you think the faculty there might persuade students to look at religion for what it really is?  Perhaps I'm being a little presumptuous here, but it sounds like you harbor some fear that if all the religious cards are put on the table then people might actually judge it accordingly.  Is there something wrong with that?  What makes you think it would be 'oversimplified'?  Frankly, I doubt the crisis of 'misknowledge' that you speak of.  Yet, I think you have raised an important question, namely, HOW should it be taught?  My answer?  It should be taught as objectively as possible...and I think philosophy professors are generally the most apt in this regard...history profs a close second.  As long as there is no 'proselytizing' in the classroom which would probably be more common among theologians....

I would stick to my pessimism about Harvard (and other schools as well)... not because they're too "liberal" or "secular", etc. etc.  As I said in my post, it's some of these oversimplified binaries- fact/value, private/public... you might also add religious/scientific, objective/subjective, etc. etc.  It's not about fear of what might come up in the classroom, it's about their inability to convince me that they HAVE thought long and hard about religion in a way that doesn't come to the topic with just as much preconceptions as your average fundamentalist. 

For this reason I would also be wary of having philosophers teach religion... even the current "turn to religion" and postmetaphysical philosophy seems to just be saying what theologians have been saying for a long time, only in a more clumsy manner because they're trying to express doctrinal issues with a reduced lexicon (reduced to avoid ontotheology, but also now rather hypochondriatic about anything that might smack of ontotheology).  Too me, Levinas' definition of philosphy as "knowledge of love" rather than "love of knowledge" epitomizes this scholarly climate where people are trying so hard to do what used to be done quite well by theological faculties (and still is done well, albeit in a more institutionally marginalized form).

Is anyone familiar with UVA's religion department?  That, I think, is the best example of religion taught in a "secular" university.  What is helpful about their approach is that they avoid reductionism and oversimplification by structuring dialogue well BETWEEN religious paradigms.  The faculty there are very invested in doing religious studies the right way and I think it certainly shows. 

...which leads me to a question for arete 1 (or anyone): You mention philosophers and historians as good places to go for teaching religion, but there are still "religious studies" departments out there that are not necessary "theology" departments.  Have you left them out for some reason?  Granted, often religious studies departments are simply a hodge podge of interdisciplinary profs from sociology, psychology, philosophy, history, etc.  But is there a reason not to include a religion department on your list?  Now, I've already expressed doubt about the helpfulness of most religious studies scholars, and maybe this is where you are too.  Are you making a distinction between theology and religious studies, though?  Because that's an important point to make. 

[husqvarna]

it's about their inability to convince me that they HAVE thought long and hard about religion in a way that doesn't come to the topic with just as much preconceptions as your average fundamentalist. 

Sorry... "Just as MANY preconceptions"

[invinoveritas]

hvernon,

I think I understand your gripe and sympathize with it to some degree.  Discussion of religion often involves 'oversimplified binaries' or dichotomies....yes.  I think everyone who debates religion (or anything) always does so with some 'preconceptions'.  But I wouldn't equate these preconceptions as on a par with 'your average fundamentalist'.  Fundamentalist preconceptions are so overtly ridiculous and indefensible, whereas the logic of a disjunctive syllogism is not. 

I guess my point here is that a disjunctive syllogism and a false dichotomy are two different things.  One is a logical rule and the other is a fallacy.  Religion should be analysed logically (how else might it be properly analysed?). 

I think you're correct to point out that postmetaphysical or 'postmodern' philosophy might be clumsy in its approach, but I think that is a clumsy way of stating it.  The majority of the philosophy faculty at Harvard (and most philosophy departments) are not in the 'postmodern camp' that you speak of. 

Yes...there are many religous studies professors who know and teach the subject quite well I think.  Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my suggestion, but I think the number of such departments are relatively small.  And I do think that there is often (though not always) a general distinction between religous studies and theology.  Generally, religious studies involves a broad study of the history and practices of all or most religions.  Theology departments are almost always 'Christian' and their business is the system-building and defense of their faith.  I'm sure someone will lambast me for the following observation, but I think that most theology faculty are intellectually dishonest in that they base their whole discipline on a number of unfounded and nearly impossible assumptions.  I think the whole business of theology is somewhat of a joke....its like having a 'sherlock holmes' department that deduces all kinds of inferences about fiction.  The deductions might be valid, but the base of them is not grounded in any fact or reality....

Structuring dialogue between religions, as you suggested, might be a good way to encourage tolerance between religious fault lines, but I don't think that is a better approach than submitting religion to critical analysis.  Religion is a natural phenomenon just like anything else and it needs to be analysed as such.  Sure...college students should be informed about the various beliefs and practices of the world's major religions and they should understand the differences between them.  But I think we have to stop the strange idea that everyone's opinion on the matter is worthy of respect.  They're not.  The very fact of religious diversity and the incompatible differences between religions are proof that some beliefs (maybe all of them?) are wrong.  Interfaith dialogue may have some practical use as far as 'getting along' goes, but it bypasses the more important question....are any religious claims true?  If so, which ones?  Why?  What evidence can be offered?  Are some of these beliefs logically incoherent?  If so, are those that believe them irrational or delusional?  How does a person come to hold their religious beliefs?  Is atheism the only logical conclusion?  Can more than one religion be true or is there only one true religion?  If one is true, then what makes that one 'win'?  Is it all just childish superstition?  How is 'faith'....the epitomy of irrationality....possible?  What does any religion mean by the term 'God'?  Shouldn't this last question be answered before any kind of reasonable debate is possible?  These are not false dichotomies or oversimplified binaries....they are real questions that those who study religion should be asking.

We need to study religion itself....not aspects of it.  We need to evaluate all of it.  This involves asking whether certain religious propositions are true or false.

Sorry about the ranting and excessive use of parentheticals.....yes, I think that theologians are biased.  Religious studies professors, philosophy professors, and history professors should be teaching religion courses to undergraduates....they should do more than survey the beliefs and practices of religions too....they should also evaluate the content of religious beliefs.  The 'taboo' of openly discussing (and challenging) religious claims must be buried.  Why has this groundless prohibition been so effective and accepted for so long?

[husqvarna]

arete1, thanks for the good response.

I appreciate your concerns about interreligious dialogue in the university as compared to critical study.  I'm not overly familiar with the UVA department, but I would say that while it is interreligious and encourages dialogue between the religions, it is also certainly critical, and sees itself as critical in the proper way.  Nowadays it's more difficult to assert that "secular" critical inquiry is any less biased than the caricature of theology you presented in your post.  I think secularism has veritably taken its place as another religion, and the difficulty that the academy has in adjusting to this is based on the extent to which it has in the past put all of its weight into secularized knowledge.  Without suggesting that secular examination of religion is useless, I'd like to propose that an interreligious setup might be more helpful.  Charles Mathewes, at UVA, has published mostly in Christian theology and while his focus isn't purely systematic, he does tend to deal with very standard Christian figures like Augustine and Aquinas.  Mathewes also edits JAAR, and I think it's difficult to assert that his theological emphases detract from any ability to critically engage religion.  Maybe everyone interested in making religious studies integral to the curriculum should read his first edited volume, I believe it was the first volume of 2006.  The theme was the state of religion in the academy and they have some really wonderful pieces in there from all views, including your own, arete1.

hvernon,

I think I understand your gripe and sympathize with it to some degree.  Discussion of religion often involves 'oversimplified binaries' or dichotomies....yes.  I think everyone who debates religion (or anything) always does so with some 'preconceptions'.  But I wouldn't equate these preconceptions as on a par with 'your average fundamentalist'.  Fundamentalist preconceptions are so overtly ridiculous and indefensible, whereas the logic of a disjunctive syllogism is not. 

I guess my point here is that a disjunctive syllogism and a false dichotomy are two different things.  One is a logical rule and the other is a fallacy.  Religion should be analysed logically (how else might it be properly analysed?). 

Are you trying to say that my "oversimplified binaries" are disjunctive syllogisms rather than false dichotomies?  Or is this statement connected to other comments you made about the need to sort out whether religious propositions are true or false [presumably in a non-religious, critical manner]? 

[madamesmartypants]

I cannot disagree with this article more, for reasons both personal and civic.

After nine years of Catholic school education, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that would ever lead me to agree to step foot in a religious studies classroom again. There is nothing more that I want to learn about Catholicism nor do I think anyone could teach me more about it. Think Catholic school wasn’t enough? Perhaps I need a background in Islam or Judaism? No thank you. If I am interested I will look it up on my own time, or read a book about it, just like anybody else can if and when they choose to.

As far as I am concerned, religion—whether it is the intellectual pursuit or habitual practice thereof—is a deeply personal matter, and in a society where religion is shoved down our throats on a daily basis—and I do mean those pundits who talk about Good Samaritans—I demand a space where religion is not a discourse with which I need to engage to make a point about what constitutes a sound social or political position. I think the lack of such spaces in the world today makes it incredibly difficult for people to see their lives, or the lives of others, outside of a religious framework, even when the religious framework they are living in denies their or others’ humanity. Homosexuality is a case in point; very few religions support it, yet, as members of a secular society we have the obligation to respect all citizens regardless of their beliefs or practices. This is not something that one needs to know the Ten Commandments to understand; one need only accept the basic principle that all human beings have basic human rights. If something were to be made a requirement, then perhaps that should be it.

To require religious teaching in public universities (of all places) endangers not only a precious space devoid of religious discourse, it also encroaches on the already-tenuous separation between church and state. hvernon is right on the mark as far as the difficulty of teaching religion without preconceptions goes. I would liken it to the debate on prayer in the schools. Sure, you might argue that it promotes freedom of religion by allowing the kids to pray to whomever they choose. But what about kids who don’t pray? Must they be forced to sit in silence, feeling further isolated as everybody joins in a practice in which they refuse to participate? Won’t there be just the smallest amount of pressure to join the crowd and/or the dominant religion? Will the (perhaps deeply religious) teacher notice you fidgeting instead of praying and get offended? Like prayer in schools, requiring religious studies in public universities (or private ones for that matter) opens the door for any number of abuses to occur, while encouraging the idea that religion must be part of everyone’s lives.

Somewhere towards the end of his article, Prothero concludes that “In debates about the fate of the Middle East, the propriety of gay marriage, and the politics of Islam, the stakes are too high to defer to politicians and pundits.” I agree; religion is not a matter to be decided by politicians. But it's also not a matter that should be decided by academics. Go read your Qu'ran, talk to your religious leader, meditate or whatever, just so long as you keep it to yourself.

[husqvarna]

An open question for anyone- What is a liberal arts education?  I'm sure this has been discussed in numerous places on the forum, but after reading cghanbar's post it struck me that the answer to this question shouldn't just be assumed.  I think what we find in academia today is a mix of a classic liberal arts model, the modern research university, and whatever more recent trends have begun to affect our studies.  I'm wondering if religious issues are implicit in the idea of liberal arts itself, more so than we might be comfortable with today.  cghanbar notes my concern about the presence of preconceptions when teaching religion, but I wasn't meaning that to dismiss the idea, just to be very cautious.  I also wasn't excluding "secularism" from the charge of bias and preconception either.

The trouble is that soem important roots of secualrism are found in the idea of the "liberal arts", but there are also strong religious roots in this tradition.  I can understand a technical school or a much more scientific-research institution avoiding religious studies as a requirement (although a research university should still have a department to study the social phenomena).  But as long as we're thinking about a liberal arts institution, or what that has a strong liberal arts component to it, I think we can't avoid wrestling with the question, whatever answer we come up with. 

[merce]

I posted the question "what is a liberal arts education"
I'd love to see more people weigh in.

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,35339.0.html

...

As far as I am concerned, religion—whether it is the intellectual pursuit or habitual practice thereof—is a deeply personal matter, and in a society where religion is shoved down our throats on a daily basis...

So which is it? Personal or out there in society?