[PeterParker]

Article about the emerging discussion of Faith/Religion on the modern college campus:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070525/cm ... pusfaith_1

Higher education's missing soul

Fri May 25, 4:00 AM ET


As a premier university, Harvard wants to lead, not follow. Last year, its curriculum committee saw a rising spiritual hunger among students and proposed a mandated study on religion. But many professors revolted. This month, Harvard announced a new core curriculum, one that will teach, among other topics, simply about "culture and belief."


Harvard's change of heart reveals much about the difficulty for colleges in trying to meet a growing interest among students to find meaningful answers for daily problems and public issues.


A 2004 survey of 112,000 college freshmen found that nearly half of them say they are seeking opportunities to grow spiritually. But once at school, nearly half of all students are dissatisfied with the opportunities for "spirituality reflection." Nearly two-thirds say their teachers never encourage discussion on spiritual or religious topics, according to the survey by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the University of California, Los Angeles...


...Criticizing the lack of faith-based studies at colleges is not new. William Buckley's 1951 book "God and Man at Yale" looked at how his school abandoned its religious roots. And this fall, Yale's former law school dean, Anthony Kron­man, is coming out with a book titled: "Education's End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life..."

[paradox]

Anyone happen to catch "The Question of God" series on PBS? It was on about two years ago and it was filmed at Havard and based on Armand Nicholi's forum at Harvard.

It was in essence a roundtable discussion and debate piting Sigmund Freud's atheistic worldview up against CS Lewis's Theistic/Christian worldview. The participants included Catholic and Evangelical thinkers defending Lewis's position and empirical skeptics defending the Freud position. There were also new age mystics involved in the discussion, but they didn't appear to be defending either side.

I found both the series, which is now on DVD, and book which carries the same title, to be very thought provoking and thoroughly interesting. In a nutshell, the discussions center around Frued, who started out in faith, but ended up as an atheist, and Lewis, who began as an atheist, but ended up in faith. I found it intersting that both men were atheists as a result of deep internal anguish surrounding the loss of a loved one. Later in his life as a Christian, Lewis still experienced deep grieving over the loss of his wife, but his faith persevered nonetheless.

[Cider Jim]

One book worth reading on this topic is Finding God at Harvard: Spiritual Journeys of Thinking Christians: it's a book of Christian testimonies of Harvard students, staff, faculty, & special speakers who describe their spiritual experiences at Cambridge.

[El Scorcho]

This is going to be a huge topic for the world over the next ten years, I believe. There's a new wave of atheism coming forward, and it's not the kind that's content just being. It's led by Richard Dawkins (http://richarddawkins.net/) and they're demanding that religion (and in turn, religious people) be given no special respect, privilege or even consideration. Dawkins' book is called "The God Delusion" and is the ammo behind the push. You've already seen some of their work in another form at The Rational Response Squad (http://www.rationalresponders.com/) and their Blasphemy Challenge.

Expect this to be the new debate that we face. They have a particular bent towards our people, in spite of them being vehemently against all religions.

[paradox]

Dawkins, or Darwin's Rottweiler as he is known, has been drawing alot of attention lately, in much the same way as another British atheist, Bertrand Russell, did a generation ago.

His denunciation of religion is so excessive that he even condemns the study of metaphysics in philosophy. For Dawkins, any attempt to understand reality outside of cold euclidean calculations leading to posteriori theories should be classified as a dangerous mental condition. Dawkins is so over-the-top that many fellow atheists in the academic relm disregard him altogether. His true followers are those on the hard left who are looking for an authority figure to lean on. Dawkins is the imagined expert, who in their minds, can authoritatively denounce all Christians and all other transcedental thinkers, classifying us as unenlightened and mentally deranged.

Ironically enough for Dawkins, he cannot survive a debate with a real Christian thinker. Currently, he scurries around Britain trying to evade legitimate debate with Oxford profs Richard Swineburne and Alister McGrath. Although, he did have a brief exchange with McGrath, Dawkins totally discredited himself by appearing to change his positions in mid-debate after McGrath pressed him to justify the basis for his dogmatism and his stern inductive approach without a transcendant source.

Back in October, Dawkins, cowardly denounced Liberty and its professors from a tiny podium on the campus of Randolf Macon Women's College. Because he was in Lynchburg, he acted like he was taking on the best Evangelical minds from LU, when in fact he was surrounded by a small campus of mostly admiring supporters. I can't imagine Dawkins being very comfortable standing at the podium opposite Habermaas or Beck, or even Provenzola or Morrison.

[El Scorcho]

For all of his attacks on religious folks, I found Dawkins' conversation with the Bishop of Oxford to be rather interesting. Not because I agreed with either side's take on things, but it was good food for thought all the same.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0212099921

And yes, Dawkins' little speech/q&a at RMWC was kind of pitiful. It was a room full of people hating on LU, more or less. Here's that little ditty:

Part 1:

Part 2:

"The Rational Response Squad" also did an interview with Dr. Caner. While I had hoped it would come out differently, I have to admit that Caner didn't really do very well in that interview. He had such a hard time understanding where they were coming from that it was almost painful to listen to.

[paradox]

I did enjoy the discussion with the Bishop of Oxford, but once again, we find Dawkins in dialogue with someone wearing a clerical collar who nonetheless sympathizes with his secularist mindset. In fact, Richard Harries' legacy as Bishop of Oxford was his controversial appointment of an openly gay bishop and his teaming up with Dawkins to publicly condemn a small private school in the UK for teaching intelligent design/creationism. An even more interesting discussion would be Richard Dawkins sitting down with someone who would actually challenge his views. Someone such as Cambridge Physicist and Christian Author, John Polkinghorne. A dialogue comparable to that would expose too many of Dawkins' vulnerabable positions to his followers. For that very reason, such a debate will probally never occurr. Dawkins will, nonetheless, continue to take-on lightweights and pseudo-Christians whenever he can.

I didn't see the Caner interview, but I'm not surprised. I'm a little disappointed that he didn't go into that more prepared. He has unlimited resources at his disposal in Habermaas and Beck, so there is no excuse. Caner is an outstanding evangelist, but all evangelists must learn sooner or later that there are some venues where emotion-based persuation is ineffective. Usually, a healthy mix of irony and logic works well within this context of debate with overly-rationalistic atheists. And it's essential to understand your opponent's views as well.

I like Caner, and I believe that he'll learn from the experience. It's funny, I saw the exact same group debating Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. As sincere as Kirk and Ray are, they just looked silly in a debate with atheists.

If there's one thing that these atheists are good at, it's finding people who are unprepared to debate them and then getting them in the ring and slamming them. Should we be surprised? Afterall, Darwinism has been avoiding real debate since its inception.

[SumItUp]

While there is a definite need for someone to lead the charge in the debate of Atheism vs. Christianity, as Christians we need to avoid being "cheerleaders" in the debate. We will always be under attack for our beliefs. The debate is ultimately won as we impact (with or without fanfare) the lives of others throughout the world. Christians will continue to lead the charge for the sanctity of life. We continue to be a voice for those that do not have one whether it be the unborn, disabled, elderly, or persecuted.

[paradox]

The discussion about faith and reason is as appropiate and as important as any of the ministries or social issues that you mentioned. Thousands of college-aged individuals lose their faith every year due to unresolved and under-examined issues of the heart and mind. In addition, there are numerous seekers out there who are starting out with a secularist view of the world. Their mind's are often filled with so many distortions about faith that this discussion may serve to be a neccessary part of the conversion process.

Compelling people to come to Christ in a university setting is every bit as relevant as any mission field out there.

It's not cheerleading, but on the contrary, it's a vocation for those who are called by God to be engaged. It may not be your calling, but for some it is, and again, it is as relevant as any mission or pastoral venture. It's important as a Christian university, to understand this, so that graduates will go out into every profession and every area of the world in order to serve Christ.

[PeterParker]

I concur with you paradox. There are more of the emotionally charged persuasion "tacticians" than the Christian Intellectuals debating these issues in the public square. Many times it is more bombast than an engaging of intellectual appeal that these voices rely on...which may work to a sympathetic audience within the Christian-ese bubbles, but where are the modern christian philosophers and Christian Intellectuals who are well-versed in Freud and Jung as well as Lewis, and others from the long legacy of christian thinkers to take on the intellectuals on the otherside (the Scopes Trial didn't work out so well in the last era of the clash of Faith & Reason.)


...How about more individuals like C.S. Lewis, or even Oswald Chambers who spoke from a reasoned view while embracing the christian faith and can actually hold their own against the intellectual heavyweights of the opposite worldviews.


Furthermore, as many in Christian leadership become alarmed about postmodernism in the culture, this is a ripe time for well-reasoned christians to engage themselves in the dialogue. Just as the postmodern era is causing Christians to reexamine their faith (and some to abandon it on the altar of reason), the flip side is also true, those who have dogmatically held to an anti-faith view are reevaluating their own accepted dogmas...this creates a ripe opportunity for Christians who can engage them within their own paradigms to discourse with them about the Christian faith in order to lead them to the Truth.

As such, Christian-ese and two-bit catch phrases are out and lack credibility, while intellectual engagement and a well-reasoned and rational defense of the faith (in humility) is in.


I'm not too sure of much about Caner concerning his style and persona, I have read positive and negative things; but I have to say that I thought it was a good move to incorporate the Apologetics curriculum as a major...I think it would also be beneficial for the average student to be exposed to an apologetics course so they may make a reasoned and rational defense (in humility) of their faith in regards to the other world's faiths, including Atheism.


This whole discussion is why I am glad that Liberty has taken to hiring folks like the Geology Professor who has been in the media as of late...he is well versed in both paradigms, accepts a christian worldview, yet can reasonably discourse with those of the other view...when the outside world realizes that LU doesn't just teach Creationism, but exposes students to both views, and Christians realize that learning about a counterviewpoint does not equal endorsing it nor indoctrinating students with it, the future students at LU will be well-served.


As a side note: I was thinking the other day about my LU education, and it occurred to me while many complain about folks in churches having a weak defense of the faith or weak knowledge of church history, my LU education included classes like Evangelism and GNED that took whole semesters and others such as OT and NT survey courses that could have been stronger for some who had certain profs. While evangelism is a key component to the Evangelical view, the info in this type of "course" could be disseminated elsewhere as a 1 hour credit deal (maybe in conjunction with freshman/transfer seminar or some other way.) Contemporary issues is a fine type of course, but perhaps it could be merged with an apologetics course since it really deals with types of thought and viewpoints.

I would welcome seeing Liberty substitute a couple of courses in its place:
>A "Comprehensive Church History to Present Day" course in place of a 3 Credit Evangelism course.
>A solo "Apologetics" course or simply fold into the GNED classes or collapse the content of 2 GNED courses into one and have an Apologetics course in lieu of a GNED 2 course for all students. As of when I attended, these two type of courses fit only into the religion major.

(Also, since we are Liberty Univeristy, perhaps a foundational documents course (Magna Carta, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, et al) or at the very least this subject matter could be folded into one of the other requisite classes (again, maybe Freshman seminar as a brief introduction to what LU is more appropriate), since as of now only the History majors get to the real good stuff and the survey courses breeze through with a brief mention of them.)


Meanwhile, Regent is amping up its marketing and educational climate to be "The Premier Center for Christian Intellectual Thought" and places like Notre Dame are reevaluating there purpose in the higher education landscape. Although, obviously LU embraces a different theolgoical paradigm than Notre Dame's Catholic dogma, observing their discourse and reevaluation would be beneficial. I posted this elsewhere, but there is some good stuff in this 2010 plan that Notre Dame as an institution has defined and set in motion as a self-improvement plan:


(Just replace Catholic references with Evangelical and make it):

A Strategic Plan for Liberty 2020: Fulfilling the Vision


1. http://www.nd.edu/~stratgic/final/index.shtml A Strategic Plan for Notre Dame 2010: Fulfilling the Promise [Link is down at the moment for some reason.]

[whmatthews]

Actually I thought Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron did well in their debate agaisnt the RRS. The first part maybe not so much, it's hard to explain God's existence without using the Bible, which is what they agreed to do, and soon as Comfort got up there he started saying "The Bible says..." But for the rest of it, it really wasn't a good debate at all. The RRS didn't prove God didn't exist, they just tried to shoot down Comfor and Cameron's arguments and I thought they did a horrible job and at some points you can see they are getting mad because they're doing a bad job, it makes that woman go off on a crazy bit about "I wouldn't want to go to heaven to worship a tyrant". Even if it were a debate where there had to be a winner I personally thought Ray and Kirk won.

[Sly Fox]

Somewhere in the Philly Burbs Medic's head is imploding.

Seriously, I agree wholeheartedly with both 'dox & spidey in this discussion. If we are going to be passionate about our Faith, we need to be trained to understand its basis and challenged to be able to defend ourselves. Despite what some intellectuals would have you believe, we have no reason to be embarassed of anything we believe.

Its funny you should bring up some of the curriculum issues because back when some of us Old Hags were in school we had much greater requirements than are in place today. But the school had to downsize some of the religion-oriented classes to keep SACS happy. That is greatly disappointing, to be honest. I agree that a basic apologetics class would be a terrific freshman or sophomore level requirement. It would force students to open their minds and not depend of the crutches they've used to carry them while living under their parents' sovereignty.

Kudos to PP for starting this dialogue.

[PeterParker]

Thanks for shout-out Sly.

I must say that I am very thankful for the SACS accreditation being out in the general employment landscape...it does offer validity to the LU degree among the public at large.

Yet, since we have some of those other "religious-affiliated" classes already in place (with SACS approval), it occurs to me a simple solution to merely substitute the 3 credit Evangelism class with a 2 credit apologetics class, and a 1 or 2 credit church history class so as not to disturb the SACS accreditation. Both of these classes are not "proselytizing" type classes in that they are more of a history class that one could find on the academic buffet line a non-religious affiliated university also.

[paradox]

I'd imagine that the Apolgetics course and the Evangelism course could effectively be merged into one three credit course. In today's world, proclaiming the faith and defending it often go hand and hand. Coming to Christ, is often a matter of both the heart and mind.

[LUconn]

I agree that a basic apologetics class would be a terrific freshman or sophomore level requirement. It would force students to open their minds and not depend of the crutches they've used to carry them while living under their parents' sovereignty.

I think it is. Or at least it was 4 years ago when I had to take it. Plus we get Ken Ham dropping by with his preschool style slide show. No seriously, he's a smart guy. Just his slideshow has cartoons and stuff.

[Libertine]

Apologetics is now a required 3-hour course -- and no longer P-F -- but it's called something else.