Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 8:58AM | in Religion God and Man at University
A new working paper published by the National Bureau for Economic Research in the US produces some interesting findings about religiosity and university education, among which is this:
The authors conclude that it is not science, per se, that erodes belief, but an education grounded in post-modernist thought. While much of the discussion about this research has concerned what it says about universities, I think it says much more about the nature of contemporary religion. Most religious people entering university these days do not consider the intellectual dimensions of belief. In the words of one blogger, religion "is a combination of a personal thing and a social/cultural thing." Most young people are either raised in a religious tradition where their religiosity and attendance at services reflects the habits of their parents, or they have adopted a radical form of belief (perhaps charismatic) that considers reason to be almost irrelevant to matters of religion. In other words, people carefully divide their religious worldview from their rational faculties.
An education in the social sciences tends to probe inherited assumptions about why the world is the way that it is. This is certainly true of my own undergraduate studies, and it reflects the authors' characterization of post-modernism as challenging the basis for knowledge, truth, authority and morality. Where one's religious beliefs do not provide a conceptual framework for thinking about the world and our place in it, I think they are inherently vulnerable to being destabilized by such questions. The problem is not secular higher education, however, but with religious communities that fail to encourage their young people to ask hard and critical questions and to seek intelligent answers that harmonize with their beliefs.
Being a humanities or a social science major has a statistically significant negative effect on religiosity — measured by either religious attendance and how important students consider the importance of religion in their lives. The impact appears to be strongest in the social sciences [compared with the humanities and physical sciences]
The authors conclude that it is not science, per se, that erodes belief, but an education grounded in post-modernist thought. While much of the discussion about this research has concerned what it says about universities, I think it says much more about the nature of contemporary religion. Most religious people entering university these days do not consider the intellectual dimensions of belief. In the words of one blogger, religion "is a combination of a personal thing and a social/cultural thing." Most young people are either raised in a religious tradition where their religiosity and attendance at services reflects the habits of their parents, or they have adopted a radical form of belief (perhaps charismatic) that considers reason to be almost irrelevant to matters of religion. In other words, people carefully divide their religious worldview from their rational faculties.
An education in the social sciences tends to probe inherited assumptions about why the world is the way that it is. This is certainly true of my own undergraduate studies, and it reflects the authors' characterization of post-modernism as challenging the basis for knowledge, truth, authority and morality. Where one's religious beliefs do not provide a conceptual framework for thinking about the world and our place in it, I think they are inherently vulnerable to being destabilized by such questions. The problem is not secular higher education, however, but with religious communities that fail to encourage their young people to ask hard and critical questions and to seek intelligent answers that harmonize with their beliefs.
Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 8:58AM | in Religion 
Reader Comments (4)
Interesting post, Geoff. I think you've hit the nail nicely on its head in linking the lack of a coherent intellectual framework in most people's religious beliefs or traditions to their vulnerability to being destabilized by the kinds of questions that are raised in humanities and social science courses at university level.
However, I think one does have to acknowledge that the pervasiveness of post-modernism in university social science departments makes it difficult for students - particularly undergraduates - to argue for alternative views. In fact, it's more than arguing for alternative views; it's a matter of questioning the hegemony of the post-modernist paradigm, a paradigm which seems 'obviously correct' to those who breathe that atmosphere day by day or who are its defenders.
It would take great strength of mind and clarity of thought about one's faith to consistently put forward a new conceptual framework.
[...] An education in the social sciences tends to probe inherited assumptions about why the world is the way that it is. This is certainly true of my own undergraduate studies, and it reflects the authors’ characterization of post-modernism as challenging the basis for knowledge, truth, authority and morality. Where one’s religious beliefs do not provide a conceptual framework for thinking about the world and our place in it, I think they are inherently vulnerable to being destabilized by such questions. The problem is not secular higher education, however, but with religious communities that fail to encourage their young people to ask hard and critical questions and to seek intelligent answers that harmonize with their beliefs. via jeunestreet.com [...]
Thanks for your comment, Barney. While I agree that the post-modern paradigm is increasingly pervasive, I don't think it's inherently threatening to religion. In fact, most post-modern positions would actually support the central role of religion in many societies -- in marked contrast to the positivist empiricism of the new atheists. The threat to religion is really at the level of inherited belief: what authority is legitimate? to what extent do moral codes sustain exploitative or dominant relationships? how do we determine the reliability of religious knowledge?
These are all questions that will undermine the religiosity of someone who has not examined the intellectual assumptions of their beliefs. But for others I think they can provide prompts for a deep and fulfilling exploration of the foundations and implications of belief.
For a great example of how a post-modern position can lead to fascinating exploration of religious belief and practice, I would highly recommend the book by Paul Lample, Revelation and Social Reality.
Thanks for your comment, Barney. While I agree that the post-modern paradigm is increasingly pervasive, I don't think it's inherently threatening to religion. In fact, most post-modern positions would actually support the central role of religion in many societies -- in marked contrast to the positivist empiricism of the new atheists. The threat to religion is really at the level of inherited belief: what authority is legitimate? to what extent do moral codes sustain exploitative or dominant relationships? how do we determine the reliability of religious knowledge?
These are all questions that will undermine the religiosity of someone who has not examined the intellectual assumptions of their beliefs. But for others I think they can provide prompts for a deep and fulfilling exploration of the foundations and implications of belief.
For a great example of how a post-modern position can lead to fascinating exploration of religious belief and practice, I would highly recommend the book by Paul Lample, Revelation and Social Reality.