the new academic morality
I noticed a friend's blog linking to a disturbing Wall Street Journal opinion piece decrying the instructional standards set by the University of California for highschool course requirements. In the article, new UC guidelines are deceptively depicted as a rejection of harmless literary dialogs, such as whether Frankenstein's monster had a soul. The author portentously portrays the guidelines as an ominous attack on Christian schools that will eventually spurn entire curriculums at faith-based schools—despite the fact that only three courses in the entire state were rejected as sub-standard. While the new rules merely deny academic credit for rejected courses, the article insinuates that taking such a course will effectively prevent a student's acceptance at a University of California. The article also ignores the real reasons given by UC for the rejections. As an example, the UC system requires that students read at least one full text, and one of the rejected courses was only anthology samples. But, apparently, this type of reasonable academic standard is now a discrimination against Christians.
In ending, the article makes the absurd accusation that the UC requirements are "stripping religion even out of the religion classes". They evidence this claim by quoting the helpful hints section which notes that a course should not have "the personal religious growth of the student" as a primary goal.
I may be old-school, but I hold to the belief that education should be primarily about education, not spiritual guidance. I'm sad that mainstream Christianity seems to disagree. In fact, in many areas, our predominantly Christian culture is moving away from well-grounded traditional education. We have a huge movement pressuring schools to teach faith-based ideologies as fact. We have Christian courses revising history to portray Deist founding fathers as devout Christians. We have a president who claims that science classes should include—on equal footing—"differing" viewpoints based on religion instead of science. We have federal a program promoting abstinence by claiming that AIDS can spread through tears. And now the WSJ is complaining because classes primarily focused on spiritual advancement won't receive academic credit in some California universities? What ever happened to the idea of a simple, instructive course on religion?
From the quote in the article, the guidelines don't even appear to discount the idea of spiritual growth being a secondary goal, as long as the primary intent is education. That this basic educational requirement raises the ire of Christians is very unnerving. More and more, I see Christians claiming that science classes need to consider alternative sources for truth, beyond the scope of science; that we can't discount any belief as long as enough Americans believe it; that anyone who upholds the scientific method as the sole means for explaining the physical world is oppressive and dogmatic. In fact, scientists are increasingly viewed as atheistic, agenda-driven elitists who can't be trusted to determine ethical standards in their own fields of expertise. This is a radical change from the 50's and 60's view of American scientists as noble, innovative pioneers, finding a way to reach the moon, fight polio, or harness atomic energy.
At one time, this country—along with its Christian majority—was a bastion of learning and scientific progress. Today, we have Christians fighting against rudimentary academic requirements, opposing well-established principles of health sciences, and muddying the public's understanding of the last 150 years of biology. It's time for this country to get back on track. But when will American Christians return to an acceptance of scholarly standards?
posted by Ryan @ 8:07 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Ryan,
I have not had a chance to read the Wall Street Article or the actual UC guidelines, so I will limit the scope of my comment to one general point that you pointed to in your posting, which is the idea that mainline christians are acting in a way that is contrary to reason.
I accept that in general, it is possible for christians (as well as scientists) to act in a way that is opposed to reason, and that is unfortunate. However, I do believe that reason and faith need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, I would take the stronger stance that reason and faith need to be intergrated closely -- at least for anyone with any religious beliefs. If one's starting point is atheistic, then perhaps reason can stand on its own.
I would also comment that scientists, can not "determine ethical standards in their own field", because ethical issues cannot be discussed within the framework of the scientific method. The scientific method can only lead humanity to a particular kind of knowledge, such as the knowledge of how to harness atomic energy, but science is incapable of addressing when it is ethical to use the atomic bomb.
John from Ann Arbor
For starters, I would like to know what day at 2:27 PM John wrote his comments. A specific day? Everyday at 2:27 PM? The degeneracy of the time overwhelms me.
Secondly, perhaps we need to reason out what an education is, and a good education in particular. For example, a "well-grounded traditional education" is held up as the high standard that Americans are departing from.
Okay. So what is a well-grounded traditional education? 3 R's: Reading, `ritin', `rithmatic? The pursuit of truth? The classical sort of education that C.S. Lewis received? A program of study including the "great books" of Western civilization, starting from Plato, etc.?
If we know what a (good) education is, maybe some sense could be made of what the purpose of a good education is. Then maybe notions like primary and secondary (tertiary, etc?) purposes could become clearer, as they are currently foggy in my mind.
John,
I'm not saying that mainstream christians are acting contrary to all reason. Merely that there is a growing tendency to reject or oppose certain academic standards and principles. These are mainly standards and principles which are seen (likely incorrectly) as anti-Christian.
I absolutely agree that faith and reason can exist together peacefully. In fact, part of my central point is that they used to co-exist more productively than today.
The one place I strongly disagree with you is this:
scientists, can not "determine ethical standards in their own field", because ethical issues cannot be discussed within the framework of the scientific method
This is exactly the kind of statement I'm refering to in the 4th paragraph. Not only does science have much to say about ethical standards in the field of science, input from the scientific community is vital in determining their ethical standards. Certainly, ethical evaluation can (and probably will) require information and values from other areas of knowledge, but these other areas of knowledge are inadequate by themselves.
To use a current example, the Bush administration's ethical commentary on stem cell researching is founded entirely on religious sentiment rather than fact. This has led them to make incorrect factual statements which reaffirm their religious sentiments. In reality, they are basing their decisions on misconception and ignorance. A real expert in the field could easily point out their errors, but the Bush administration's moral guardians have made up their minds on primarily non-scientific grounds. Thus, they have come to a conclusion that is ethically absurd. Had they allowed an expert in the field of stem cell research to combine existing moral values with knowledge from science, a better analysis could have been made.
Even in your example of the atomic bomb, this is true. It is up to a scientist to determine the results of using an atomic bomb, not a moralist. A moralist can make guidlines, but a scientist had to determine how much destruction would be caused, what effect the radiation would have, and how the population would cope. When unscientific principles try to make claims about cloning, assisted suicide, etc, it is bound to result in a misguided decision.
John and Ryan,
I think I see the point of confusion here.
Scientists, as people, can certainly make ethical judgements, just as much as anyone else. John, I think you mean to say that the scientific method, as traditionally defined as an organized body of knowledge obtained by observation, experiment, and hypothesis, is not a system of values, but of facts. As ethical judgements are about values ("we can do a thing, but should we do it?"), they are beyond the scope of the scientific method.
Ryan, I agree that certainly facts and hypothesized outcomes of possible actions, obtained by the scientific method, would be critical to any ethical judgement about a proposed action. The scientist and the moralist must talk to each other and share their expertise to draw up guidelines.
In terms of making judgements, scientists are humans, and therefore I think most scientists are also moralists to a greater or lesser degree, even if it isn't their job title. Anyone who designs a technology must think at least a little bit about its implications. Those who don't are deemed "Mad Scientists" and the Physics Mafia takes care of them.
Ryan, Shane,
I am in agreement with both of you. Yes, I meant to say that scientific method, in itself, cannot provide moral guidance. And when people of faith decide to fabricate facts or to exclude reason, then we are all in trouble.
Let's continue with the adventure of faith and reason!
John from Ann Arbor
Speaking of faith and reason, I have long had a sneaking suspicion that one was prior to the other, namely reason. The mind's ability to grasp reality precedes faith. The world must be intelligible before anything can be revealed to us, whether by God or by nature.
Another suspicion I have is this: the fact that the world is intelligble at all may argue for an underlying creative intellect that makes the natural world what it is. I think this may have been one of C.S. Lewis's points in Miracles. I haven't read the book in a while, but maybe the idea took that long to gestate. I also belief the writings of physicist Paul Davies speak of this. I was heavily influenced by his Davies's books in high school.
Post a Comment
<< Home