Mark C. Taylor wrote an op-ed piece in the NYT ("Times Select" subscribers only) focusing on the intersection of religious education and academic freedom. I got it from Chris Hallquist, and he picked up from Andy Sullivan. I want to relay the full-text below, and give my commentary in italics between paragraphs.
The Devoted Student
by Mark C. Taylor, 12/21/06, NYT, A(39)L
More college students seem to be practicing traditional forms of religion today than at any time in my 30 years of teaching.
SDM: I have no doubt he's right. I would go so far as to say that modern fundamentalism in the United States among university students may be at an all-time high since the early 20C.
At first glance, the flourishing of religion on campuses seems to reverse trends long criticized by conservatives under the rubric of ''political correctness.'' But, in truth, something else is occurring. Once again, right and left have become mirror images of each other; religious correctness is simply the latest version of political correctness. Indeed, it seems the more religious students become, the less willing they are to engage in critical reflection about faith.
SDM: The cultural context in which my generation has grown up needs to be considered here. The idea of "culture wars" and the fostering of a mentality of "us vs. them" really reached a head in the Evangelical community sometime in the past two decades. From court cases deciding "creation science" to unprecedented discontentment with the MSM and Hollywood, Evangelicals have resorted to insulating their own like never before. Homeschooled children are one example of this phenomenon. Science-free "creation science" being pushed hard under the guise of some new "Intelligent Design" is another.
The chilling effect of these attitudes was brought home to me two years ago when an administrator at a university where I was then teaching called me into his office. A student had claimed that I had attacked his faith because I had urged him to consider whether Nietzsche's analysis of religion undermines belief in absolutes. The administrator insisted that I apologize to the student. (I refused.)
SDM: And rightly so. Thank you for taking a stand for academic freedom. Why did this blockhead attend a university if he did not want to challenge the foundations of his knowledge and beliefs? Why not go to some unaccredited online Bible college [try Baugh's] if he just wanted to reinforce his presuppositions? Those who fear exposure to alternative views should just crawl into a cave and wait to die, and allow the bustling, diverse scientific era to pass on by without them.
My experience was not unique. Today, professors invite harassment or worse by including ''unacceptable'' books on their syllabuses or by studying religious ideas and practices in ways deemed improper by religiously correct students.
SDM: Indeed. In my own state, a delegate [Baxley] attempted to get a bill passed that would allow students to sue their professors in certain situations where they felt discriminated against for being a part of the Socratic method. Pathetic.
Distinguished scholars at several major universities in the United States have been condemned, even subjected to death threats, for proposing psychological, sociological or anthropological interpretations of religious texts in their classes and published writings. In the most egregious cases, defenders of the faith insist that only true believers are qualified to teach their religious tradition.
SDM: Funny part is when you start trying to define a "True Believer"®: with respect to Christianity -- the Catholics will tell you one thing, the Protestants another, the Charismatics another, the Calvinists another...And how exactly do we test for genuine faith? Perhaps the person only agrees with a statement of faith for reasons of gaining employment or tenure, but doesn't really believe it! [start scary music]
At a time when colleges and universities engage in huge capital campaigns and are obsessed with public relations, faculty members can no longer be confident they will remain free to pose the questions that urgently need to be asked.
SDM: And who really suffers? The generations to come. Ignorance is, unfortunately, cumulative.
For years, I have begun my classes by telling students that if they are not more confused and uncertain at the end of the course than they were at the beginning, I will have failed. A growing number of religiously correct students consider this challenge a direct assault on their faith. Yet the task of thinking and teaching, especially in an age of emergent fundamentalisms, is to cultivate a faith in doubt that calls into question every certainty.
SDM: This is coming from a professor of religion, teaching courses about religion. How students could sign up for such courses and not think that they base assumptions will be challenged is beyond me.
It is also important to explore the similarities and differences between and among various religions. Religious traditions are not fixed and monolithic; they are networks of symbols, myths and rituals, which evolve over time by adapting to changing circumstances. If we fail to appreciate the complexity and diversity within, and among, religious traditions, we will overlook the fact that people from different traditions often share more with one another than they do with many members of their own tradition.
SDM: But that must be ignored by the "True Believer"®! Elsewise, it starts to look like God has more than one "Chosen People"®. And that's unacceptable to this sort of religious troglodyte.
If chauvinistic believers develop deeper analyses of religion, they might begin to see in themselves what they criticize in others. In an era that thrives on both religious and political polarization, this is an important lesson to learn -- one that extends well beyond the academy.
Since religion is often most influential where it is least obvious, it is imperative to examine both its manifest and latent dimensions. As defenders of a faith become more reflective about their own beliefs, they begin to understand that religion can serve not only to provide answers that render life more secure but also to prepare them for life's unavoidable complexities and uncertainties.
SDM: And I really believe that these complexities and uncertainties are the real cause of the faux certainty held by such dogmatists. They cannot handle a universe in which there are things without answers, laws without authors, effects without known causes. Thus, they retreat into the delusional security of ancient myth, adopted as historical fact, to comfort them. Further, this sort of soothing music to the ears of reason is but preaching to the choir -- the words falling upon stone cold closed-mindedness where it is most needed.
Until recently, many influential analysts argued that religion, a vestige of an earlier stage of human development, would wither away as people became more sophisticated and rational. Obviously, things have not turned out that way. Indeed, the 21st century will be dominated by religion in ways that were inconceivable just a few years ago. Religious conflict will be less a matter of struggles between belief and unbelief than of clashes between believers who make room for doubt and those who do not.
SDM: This is something I've written about before. One point that should not be overlooked in contemplating the rise of religious fundamentalism is the correlation between it and higher birthrates. Given that children almost always follow in the religion of their parents, the most dogmatic procreate fastest and thus accelerate tension in the future.
The warning signs are clear: unless we establish a genuine dialogue within and among all kinds of belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly.
SDM: The question is -- do people want genuine dialogue? Reading the panelists in the recent Newsweek section "On Faith" leaves me with little hope.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion
