Early this year, in a course in cross-cultural psychology at the University of Central Florida, some Christian students bore witness to their faith in a way to which the professor objected. I doubt that their expressions were mature and winsome, but I also doubt that I would have reacted in the way the professor did in a subsequent email to students:
Students in my class who openly proclaimed that Christianity is the most valid religion, as some of you did last class, portrayed precisely what religious bigotry is. Bigots—racial bigot or religious bigots—never question their prejudices and bigotry. They are convinced their beliefs are correct. For the Christians in my class who argued the validity of Christianity last week, I suppose I should thank you for demonstrating to the rest of the class what religious arrogance and bigotry looks like. It seems to have not even occurred to you (I’m directing this comment to those students who manifested such bigotry), as I tried to point out in class tonight, how such bigotry is perceived and experienced by the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the non-believers, and so on, in class, to have to sit and endure the tyranny of the masses (the dominant group, that is, which in this case, are Christians).
Here is what, for want of a better term, I’ll label his presupposition:
Critical thinkers are open to having their cherished beliefs challenged, and must learn how to “defend” their views based on evidence or logic, rather than simply “pounding their chest” and merely proclaiming that their views are “valid.” One characteristic of the critical, independent thinker is being able to recognize fantasy versus reality; to recognize the difference between personal beliefs which are nothing more than personal beliefs, versus views that are grounded in evidence, or which have no evidence.
Here’s my question: when he defines the critical thinker as he does, is he doing anything more than pounding his chest and proclaiming that his view is valid? Is there evidence for the view that only evidence (presumably of a certain sort, i.e., “empirical” or measurable evidence) matters? Or does that view itself rest on a foundation other than the evidence it claims as the only valid foundation of a view?
I don’t expect a professor of psychology at a state university to be fully conversant in the rich literature–both contemporary and historical–on faith and learning. I just expect him to be a model of the humility that he rightly demands of his students and that he be slower to level charges of bigotry.
August 21st, 2012 | 10:26 am
I am wondering what the context was that initiated this whole scenario. The Professor could easily have asked a leading question knowing or at least intuiting that he had some young Christians sitting in front of him-that brought these young disciples into the light of his withering criticism. In other words, it was a ‘set up’ job!
As you already mentioned, I wonder if he himself has completely wrestled with his own presuppositions that have brought him to be so smug in his ‘scientific certainty’.
Christians, in our age, need to rediscover the deep roots within Judaeo-Christianity of ‘faith and reason’, so that we do not set ourselves up for a scenario such as this (or allow others to set us up). The Professor’s certainties coming from his ‘scientific reasoning’ is built on assumptions and ‘beliefs’ as much as the Christian’s faith is indeed reasonable.
August 21st, 2012 | 10:34 am
Students “proclaim[ing] that Christianity is the most valid religion” constitutes, per se, “religious bigotry”? How bizarre. Surely everyone who has a sincere religious belief—or a sincere belief of any sort, for that matter—necessarily believes that it is “more valid” than the contrary opinion; otherwise they’d change their mind.
August 21st, 2012 | 10:55 am
What did G.K. Chesterton say: “The problem of ill-religion is not that people will believe in nothing; but that they will believe in everything”
This seems the case, and that quote is one I use in arguments with such types.
August 21st, 2012 | 10:59 am
As a very militant atheist, I cannot imagine someone believing anything, if they did not believe that it’s the most valid belief system. Why would I be an atheist, if I believed that Christianity and Islam were equally valid, or more valid?
The “bigots” in the class are even more moderate than I am. They believe only that Christianity is the “most valid” belief system. In other words, other religions may have some validity, but none so much as Christianity. If you asked me, only atheism is valid. So I’m an ultra-bigot, apparently.
While some Christians spend an awful lot of time making spurious claims that they are “persecuted”, in this case, the professor is very clearly in the wrong. And shame on him, and on the enforcers of political correctness.
August 21st, 2012 | 11:00 am
Botolph: The Professor’s certainties coming from his ‘scientific reasoning’
This has nothing to do with scientific reasoning at all. Science tells no man that religions other than Christianity are valid in any way, shape or form.
August 21st, 2012 | 11:24 am
Maxmillian,
I was not speaking of the professor’s comments on the other religions versus the exclusive claims of the Christians. I was speaking of the Professor’s sad ‘belief’ that only knowledge gained by science [as he put it: that knowledge grounded in evidence] is certain.
The believer’s problem is not with scientific knowledge in general but with a certain scientism’s claims to be the only way of approaching and knowing reality and the Really Real.
August 21st, 2012 | 11:26 am
I can’t help but wonder how people would feel if the students had been proclaiming that only atheists were right. I have a feeling the professor would have reacted much the same way. I am not sure what an assertion of the superiority of Christianity has in a class on cross-cultural psychology. If it had been a class on comparative religion, it might be appropriate for students of each religious group in the class to present why they believed in their own religion. The professor may not have dealt with things all that well, but it sounds like the students were disrupting the class.
August 21st, 2012 | 11:31 am
I can’t find the phrase ‘only evidence matters’ in the professor’s statement. Indeed, I think I spotted the phrase “evidence or logic” in there somewhere.
August 21st, 2012 | 11:54 am
@David Nickol: Maybe they were disrupting the class. But he didn’t scold them for disrupting the class, he scolded them for purported religious bigotry.
As for your counterfactual as to whether he’d have reacted similarly if the students had proclaimed atheism, you have a feel he would have done so. Contrarily, I have a feeling he wouldn’t. Where does that leave us?
August 21st, 2012 | 11:58 am
I read that this morning and thought exactly the same thing. Those who deplore absolutes because everything is relative and hence open thinking is absolutely to be embraced are the most absolute and closed in their thinking when confronted by anyone who says that there are absolutes. How dare you disagree with his open thinking! There absolutely are no absolutes!
I’ll bet he is offended that anyone might take offense at the way he handled the situation, too. I loved the comment that suggested that rather than an email, the professor ought to create an assignment asking students to defend their positions on the topic and then fail the Christian students for … being Christians.
August 21st, 2012 | 11:58 am
Botolph: That’s not in the professor’s actual e-mail. But he does mention evidence. He says that one ought to be able to distinguish between personal beliefs and views that are grounded in evidence. This part does not sound unreasonable at all, although I would add ‘views grounded in reason’ as a separate category, lest we descend into moral relativism.
David: It would not surprise me at all, if they disrupted the class and then claimed that they were “persecuted”. Actually, most of the professor’s e-mail is reasonable, and quite eloquent. But it sounds like a completely different person when he veers into the question of bigotry. He simply asserts that what they said was bigoted, and left it at that.
August 21st, 2012 | 1:22 pm
Is anyone actually claiming that college students in a class on comparative psychology can prove that Christianity is the most valid religion? Is that a task that can be accomplished at all, let alone in a psychology course that actually has to cover its subject in addition to allowing Christians time to “prove” that Christianity is the most valid religion?
Also, exactly what should be expected of a psychology professor in a state school when Christians, in a majority in the class, take up class time to espouse Christianity when there are students of other religions in the class?
August 21st, 2012 | 1:25 pm
Exactly what is religious bigotry? Is there such a thing? Or is one person’s religious bigot another person’s defender of the true faith?
August 21st, 2012 | 2:33 pm
I think we are missing context that apparently, from the comments here, the professor did not provide. Given the quote, the professor seems more interested in labeling students who disagree with him than teaching them, which is not a good thing.
In the end, I think the prof is just showing he is as human as the Christian students. One gathers that his beliefs are equally strong. I do find his claim that the Christian students were dishonoring those who believe else wise a bit disingenuous, given that he holds, and should hold, the power in the class.
I believe we can all learn from one another provided we can explain our beliefs. It is possible that the students were just claiming their beliefs (we’re right, you’re wrong), but it is not evident in what is presented.
August 21st, 2012 | 2:41 pm
I would suggest that those of us who are Christians should pray for this professor who seems to have some problems. From his statements he seems to lack any understanding about the nature of faith and religious belief systems. He certainly knows somethings though, evidenced by the way he describes a “critical thinker”, he knows how to rhetorically paint someone into a corner. But it doesn’t really fool one who can think critically, even those of us who are critical thinkers and believers. His charge of bigotry is certainly over-the-top and shows that he could go a long way to follow some of his own advice. As we have seen in other forums, labelling your “opponent” a bigot for holding a different view seems to be the last mode of defense once resorting to true argument has been abandoned.
Well put by Carson and Maximilian about truly believing that one’s belief system is “the most valid”, otherwise what’s the point?
I get tired of people claiming that religious believer’s need to “question their beliefs” and “challenge what they believe”. Again, this shows a clear lack of understanding about the nature of faith and what it means to live faithfully or strive to live faithfully. Why should I question what I know to be true? This knowledge is not of my own doing, but truly a blessing from God. Living in this world is challenge enough to what the church teaches but to get through I hold fast to my faith ever tighter because my faith and my experience has taught me that to do otherwise is to be lost. As frustrating as it is to hear about people like this professor and be subjected to his misguided views, let’s take the opportunity to pray for him that he will one day be a believer in Christ.
August 21st, 2012 | 2:47 pm
Elizabeth Scalia’s post today on First Thoughts: “Evangelization is Meant to Persuade, not Provoke” provides a thoughtful perspective on the questions here. She details an account of a priest wading into a crowd of protestors at a Chik-Fil-A and reciting the rosary. The priest was quickly surrounded by protestors and shouted down. He was led away by police (to de-escalate the confrontation, one presumes). Later a video of the incident was posted on the internet and went viral. The priest’s commented “I might ask about being tolerant; where’s their tolerance?”
I am in agreement with Scalia’s comment that “it is difficult to feel sympathy for Father O’Reilly; his actions toward the gay activists were intentionally provocative, which rendered his mumbles about “tolerance” insupportable.” It seems to me that if one wants to engage in the rough and tumble of “street politics” one should be prepared for, well, a certain amount of rough and tumble. In an ideal world the protestors could be challenged perhaps to live up to the virtues they believe themselves to advocate — more civil, less reactionary, but that’s not the world we live in, and Father O’Reilly should have known this. As such, his complaint smacks of a species of special pleading.
Thus, I think a more detailed account of what actually happened in the classroom would be helpful before drawing any conclusions. Is Botolph right that it was the professor who initiated a “withering criticism” of Christianity? Or did the Christian students initiate by responding defensively/aggressively to the standard politically correct (per Maximilian) meme of the modern academy about value neutrality and and the ultimacy of tolerance as the supreme virtue?
Without knowing more about the context, it seems hard to tell, or to draw any hard and fast conclusions. Certainly it is troubling to see a tenured advocate for pluralism and rationality publicly naming certain of his students “bigots”. Were I a Christian in his class, I would definitely wonder if it was possible for me to be graded objectively by said professor.
August 21st, 2012 | 6:34 pm
david c.,
I agree with you up until your last two sentences. We don’t know what was said in class. Is it impossible for Christians to act like bigots in arguing in front of others about the superiority of their religion? Maybe, from the Christian viewpoint it is. (I don’t think so, but maybe.) If Christians argue in a classroom where there are Jews and Muslims that only Christians will go to heaven, and all others will go to hell, is that acceptable, as long as you don’t specify who the “others” are? If Christians argue that Christianity is so clearly true that non-Christians are either ignorant or self-deluded, is that acceptable, as long as the Christians don’t actually name any other religions? Is it acceptable to argue that all non-Christians are going to hell, but bigotry to argue that Jews and Muslims are going to hell?
If a professor of cross-cultural psychology at a public university acknowledges that it is possible for members of any religion to know and prove their religion is true, how does he deal with a classroom where there are devout Christians, Muslims, and Jews?
August 21st, 2012 | 8:57 pm
I can’t help but wonder how people would feel if the students had been proclaiming that only atheists were right. I have a feeling the professor would have reacted much the same way.
Atheists say that all the time.
Sometimes they offer arguments. Other times they just act like it’s self-evident.
Sometimes the arguments are good. Other times they’re bad.
After all, chest-thumpers like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have made a career out of jeering at straw men.
The question is, if a Christian teacher wrote the above email to militant atheist students, would he be mocked for it?
You bet your booties he would.
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:47 am
Perhaps, the good Professor is a Logical Positivist, who has not yet read Quine?
Likewise, the students should recall Wittgenstein’s “What can be shown cannot be said.”
August 22nd, 2012 | 11:18 am
David,
If i understand your implied definition of bigotry, any person publicly proclaiming a view which excludes any others from some benefit or place or good is exposed thereby to a charge of “bigotry”. That is such an expansive view of the meaning of bigotry that it makes conversation nearly impossible, in my view.
Is not a more charitable characterization the assertion that someone who holds a different claim of exclusivity is “mistaken” (perhaps deluded — as you put it — although I think that term carries a derogatory note that mistaken does not)? After all, orthodox Jews and Muslims, (not to mention atheists) all make their own exclusive claims. Are they “bigots” if such views are expressed? Bigotry is a powerful charge, particularly in the modern academy. It is, in essence, a conversation stopper. Accusations of bigotry have become an instrument of power and coercion — a way of silencing opposition and reading folks out of civil society.
Are there “Christian bigots”? Of course there are. Christians are as prone to human brokenness as anyone else. But to characterize orthodox Christian proclamation as by its very nature bigoted (and to not apply the same standard to anyone else with a comprehensive world view or anthropology) is a species of the very kind of thing you call ‘bigotry’.
For me the question of bigotry depends on a follow on question to ~any~ exclusive claims…. “and”? Is there an imperative that follows the indicative? What is the nature of that imperative?
If the students in the class were to argue — “Christian belief is the only way to be in right relationship to the God of the universe..” (indicative) “and we think you should believe that too” (imperative) then that is not bigotry but discourse. You are free to agree or disagree. To dispute. If the indicative were to be something along the lines of “and we believe that Christianity should therefore be declared by law the only legal religion” or “and therefore Jews, Muslims and atheists should be thrown out or locked up, or killed” well that, to my mind is clearly bigotry.
Remove it from the context of religion. Is it ‘bigotry’ to state something as factual/true if by it’s implications someone may be excluded, or (in this case) “feel” excluded? If I state “no blind person should receive a driver’s license” am I being bigoted? I am claiming a particular privilege or benefit for the sighted, after all. Or am I simply stating my understanding and conviction about how the world (or at least driving in it) works? In the face of such a statement, one has a choice to engage it rationally (via discourse) or one may simply declare it an irrational animus (‘bigotry’) and thus declare the end of the matter.
It would seem to me that the ideal of the academy as a place for the free exchange of ideas is significantly endangered when the arbiters of that exchange start making charges of “bigotry” on so shaky a foundation.
August 22nd, 2012 | 5:01 pm
If the students in the class were to argue — “Christian belief is the only way to be in right relationship to the God of the universe..” (indicative) “and we think you should believe that too” (imperative) then that is not bigotry but discourse. You are free to agree or disagree. To dispute.
david c.,
It seems to me very difficult to define religious bigotry. But suppose Christians make the above case in class, and Jew stands up in class and says, “Well, the reason Jews don’t believe Jesus is the Messiah . . . .” And the Christians interrupt and say, “Of course you are going to deny Jesus is the Messiah. If you say anything else, you will have to admit the truth—you killed God!” And a Mormon stands up and starts to speak, and the Christians say, “Are you kidding me? You believe the Book of Mormon was copied from golden plates that were conveniently lost? How gullible are you, anyway?”
I do think it is religious bigotry to claim you have the truth, you can prove it, and people who don’t believe your version of the truth are either stupid, self-deluded and in denial, or are deliberately claiming to believe things they actually do believe because if the acknowledge the truth, they will have to give up their wicked lifestyle. I think one sees a certain amount of that kind of argument here, especially on hot-button issues.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact