Is it possible that religion doesn’t hold the patent on fundamentalism? A look into the study of religion at Harvard University might lead you to think so. In a recent Newsweek article entitled Harvard’s Crisis of Faith author Lisa Miller documents how religion as an academic discipline has become intolerable. So intolerable in fact that some professors there, one in particular, had it removed from the curriculum entirely.
According to Miller:
“…in practice, the Harvard faculty cannot cope with religion. It cannot agree on who should teach it, how it should be taught, and how much value to give it compared with economics, biology, literature, and all the other subjects considered vital to an undergraduate education.”
The discussion over the relevance of religion in the Harvard undergraduate curriculum pitted English professor Louis Menand against psychologist Steven Pinker. Pinker argued that the academy should be a totally secular space where reason and not religion reigns. Miller accounts for us the result of this struggle between academics:
“In the end, Menand & Co. backed down, and the matter never made it to a vote. A more brutal fight was put off for another day. But that’s a pity—for Harvard, its students, and the rest of us who need leaders better informed about faith and the motivations of the faithful.”
Lisa Miller couldn’t be more correct. It is a shame that an institution like Harvard should fall victim to the secular fundamentalism of the likes of Steven Pinker. It is alarming to see how far Harvard has fallen since its founding. Miller also expressed this sentiment in the following statement:
“Harvard’s distaste for engaging with religion as an academic subject is particularly ironic, given that it was founded in 1636 as a training ground for Christian ministers. According to the office of the president, Veritas was only officially adopted as its motto in 1843; until then it had been Christo et Ecclesiae (“For Christ and the Church”).”
Quo vadis academic freedom and tolerance?
HT: Dr. Al Mohler
