The enduring words of John Lennon from his song, "Imagine," ask us to ponder the idea of "no heaven" and "no religion." The lyrics conclude such ideas would lead to "living life in peace" and "a brotherhood of man."
Pardon me for being skeptical. It is hard to imagine (at least for me) how atheism could lead to world peace. However, there are those who believe in such a link, and they constitute a long prominent list: John Lennon, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, among others.
Imagine a classroom, a university classroom, named "Darwin's Cathedral," in which students debate the impact of evolutionary ideas on religion and theology. Imagine debating key questions like the following:
Does the study of evolution undermine the moral foundations of society?
Does the field of evolution promote hatred toward religions?
What is the role of religion in this evolution-informed 21st century?
Would human evolution be advanced and improved by the elimination of religion?
Can evolutionary science account for the extreme altruistic behavior often shown in humans?
Does evolution science deny the moral status of humanity? Are there evolutionary-based morals?
Is it possible that aspects of religious belief are biological adaptations for survival?
Should society base its ethical system in scientific rather than religious principles?
Can there be a role for spirituality in a scientific-based society?
Next spring I will be running a debate society consisting of non-LDS Honors Program university students. We will take on these issues and more.
We will be reading texts such as:
1. Edward J. Larson. (1997/2006). Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. New York, Basic Books.
2. Kenneth R. Miller. (2009). Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul. New York, Penguin Books.
3. Matt Rossano. (2010). Supernatural Selection: How Religion Evolved. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Oren Harman. (2010). The Price of Altruism: George Price and the Search for the Origins of Kindness. New York, Norton & Co.
5. Sam Harris. (2010). The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values.
The instructor, me, will have one foot in science and the other in religion. I will expect my students to debate all sides of the issues, and I will expect them to arrive at their own conclusions.
Should religion be put on the battlefield of ideas? Will students inevitably conclude there is no God and no heaven? Is such a debate society dangerous to the minds of young people? Can modern students be taught that there is a positive link between ritual and health?
Is it OK to be a Bible-carrying LDS college teacher who loves debate and Darwin? I do and I confess.
At the end of the semester, our debate-society will hold a two-hour public forum. The community will be invited. The students will formally debate the issues, and the public can ask questions.
Right now, I can only imagine what my students will imagine. I have some trepidation, but I also have some excitement.
Any advice for this old lover of debate -- me?
Copyright © 2010 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
4 comments:
"Will students inevitably conclude there is no God and no heaven?"
I imagine some will and some won't. Since this debate has been central to philosophy and the human condition for some time, I doubt there will be anything new added. However, these students, having considered the issues seriously, will be the better for it no matter what side they come out on.
For what it's worth, my favorite classes from university were the philosophy of science and religion ones. I think that a rational engagement with religion is as essential as a mystical engagement - neither is sufficient alone.
Sounds like a lot of fun!
Sounds good to me, if you really can keep just one foot in each arena. I had an intro to philosophy class as an undergrad at USU that somehow ended up being about truthfulness of LDS beliefs. The teacher was Catholic, and the vast majority of us unprepared students were Mormon.
I don't know that he was intentionally trying to disfavor Mormonism, but he always voiced arguments against us while arguments form the students weren't very good... well, escept for me :)
While the class still turned out to be a positive experience for me, I doubt it was for everyone. I wrote a post about the class if you're interested. http://thistoolslife.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-is-proof-anyways-part-1.html
Matt:
I read your linked post. It was interesting. It is not very professional for an instructor to single out a particular religion and pick on it. Further, I do not think challenges to conversion should EVER be given. If I was the Chair to such a professor, he and I would have a little talk to clarify matters.
Post a Comment