Sacredular

I’m teaching an undergraduate course in critical thinking this semester. Each week the students read up on an issue or a long-standing philosophical debate. Last week it was torture. The week before that, we discussed gay marriage. This week we’re reading “The Will to Believe” by William James.

Two bright female Hungarian students asked me what the reading was about for this week. When I told them, they got very excited.

Originally presented as a lecture, “The Will to Believe” seeks to prove that a rational mind can believe in god even if there is no evidence for that belief.

Now, let me make something clear: Mine are not students who typically get excited about 19^th century lectures on epistemology. But I have noted in my classroom a profound interest in the sacred-secular debate.

The interest in this topic belies the (typically conservative) American notion that Europe has become a playground for atheists and relativists. I can’t speak for many Western Europeans, but here in Central Europe, God has still got a firm grasp on the population.

During last’s month’s debate on gay marriage, I had one Romanian student who, despite repeated requests from his peers, refused to acknowledge any authority other than the Church in regards to the institution of marriage.

Here in Hungary, the Catholic Church’s holidays are State holidays. We get a day off on Pentecost. I was an active Catholic for years, and I didn’t know exactly what Pentecost was until I just googled it.

Anyway, I try to arrive in the classroom ready to play devil’s advocate for both sides of a debate. (Devil’s advocate, by the way, was originally a post in the Vatican for the officer who argued against the canonization of potential saints)

With this in mind, I poked around the Internet for arguments on both sides of this issue. What I found was unsettling. This debate has sharper fangs than I had anticipated. The people on either side of the divide fight as though this issue has a direct impact not only on their lives, but on society as a whole.

As someone whose faith has waxed and waned throughout my life, I’d like to ask anyone reading this to help me understand the vitriol behind the arguments.

I don’t mean to sound naïve. I understand that the issue is deeply personal. I see in both family and friends that spiritual belief is profoundly important. But several questions still remain.
To quote Malcolm X, “…I believe my religion is my personal business. It governs my personal life, my personal morals. And my religious philosophy is personal between me and the God in whom I believe; just as the religious philosophy of these others is between them and the God in whom they believe.”

This sounds reasonable to me, but the debate I’m seeing on message boards, pundit show clips, and video posts tells me that people do not believe faith is ‘personal business’ anymore.

I have theories as to why, and before I sign off, I’d like to share just one. I’ll focus on the debate in America because I’m more familiar with it.

On one side you’ve got secularists angry because religious interests are creeping into the halls of government. On the other side you have the religious advocates upset because the education system is pushing a secular agenda.

To caricature each side’s voice:
Secularists say, ‘The fundamentalists want to rid our nation of diversity and create an all-Christian America.’
While the religious claim, ‘The universities and laboratories are brainwashing your children with anti-God propaganda.’

So, it’s a turf war. One side’s got the instruments of government. The other side has the tools of education. If you can separate yourself from the fight, it’s actually kind of fun. Cause they’ve both got a point. The US government is the WASPiest institution you could hope to create; name one president who didn’t regularly finish each address with an appeal to God. And the academy has worked hard to keep religion out of the classroom.

What tickles me is that the reason both the government and the academy have developed the way they have clearly stems from the nature of the institutions themselves. The democratic process is bound to produce religious elected officials in a country where the majority of people are religious (Palestine anyone?). And the academy’s pursuit of knowledge is bound to exclude any influence that hampers its investigations.

So why are we surprised? Why are we fighting? The two institutions have attracted the minds that one would expect them to attract. Both institutions exert a powerful influence on the public. But does that undermine Malcolm X’s point? I don’t believe it does. Why would I foist my agnostic beliefs on my students who observe Orthodox traditions? What would I have to gain? I could ask the same of a fundamentalist trying to convert me. What’s the motivation?
Any help?

Below you'll find the vid that pushed me over the edge on writing this entry. I like Richard Dawkins. I think he's a smart guy. And while I respect the views of the minds behind this video, I think the video itself is a horrible piece of trash, but its popularity is interesting to me.