harvard stuck in modernity
Judging by the last two blog titles, you’re probably thinking that I have some sort of theme going on. Although it was not intentional, it was probably my last post (religion and post-postmodernism) that automatically had me responding to this article in this way. If you do not want to bother reading it, here are the important facts: Harvard needs to update its core curriculum, Harvard’s Task Force on General Education proposed a required category “Reason & Faith”, enough critics (led by scientists, “of course”) marched against the category and forced the change to “What It Means To Be a Human Being”.
First of all, the new category name is intuitively awkward and almost purposely silly. So what was the case against “Reason and Faith”? According to Harvard psychology professor, Steven Pinker, having such a requirement is comparable to having an “Astronomy and Astrology” requirement. This is a Harvard professor. Apart from his horrible comparison, Pinker just doesn’t seem to get the whole “Reason and Faith thing”. He states he does not mind that world religions be taught, but will not tolerate it as a requirement. His reason is not stated in the article, but there are not many ways to interpret his attitude: science is real, religion is not; let’s study what matters. Pinker would like to see his psychology students coming out of their degree without ever being required to have taken a course in religion - as if that is all a “Reason and Faith” requirement would entail. One, I would have to admit fearing, in this day and age, that a psychologist would not know anything about the fundamentals of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam (not to mentioned those psychologists dealing with all the “messed-up Satan-worshiping goths”); two, a study within “Reason and Faith” can be, and is more likely to be, more of an epistemological inquiry than some Intro to World Religions course.
Comparing Faith to Astrology single-handedly dismisses the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, and hundreds of other noteworthy philosophers, not to mention the metaphysical pondering of Da Vinci, Newton, and many other scientists. Unfortunately, disciplinary stereotypes hold at Harvard. While the English prof works tirelessly at creating a fair core curriculum, the scientists dig their heels in at any mention of something transcending materialism - meanwhile, I am left wondering at the University of Alberta what use I have for Atmospheric and Earth Sciences as a scholar of religion, although I admit that the Dinosaurs and Mass Extinction course I took was worth the money.
