Our friends at Harvard are having quite the row over religion. A faculty committee assigned to review the curriculum recently recommended the addition of a "Reason and Faith" requirement, which could be fulfilled with courses such as "Religion and Democracy," "Religion and Science" and "Medicine, Spirituality and Religion in Modern America." Soon a degree from Harvard's College of Arts and Sciences may include this controversial course distribution requirement, though the recent brouhaha suggests that implementing the committee's recommendation will be far from easy.
Steven Pinker, the Johnstone professor of psychology who has served on the Harvard College Curricular Review Committee on General Education in the past, vehemently opposes the new requirement. The very title rubs him the wrong way. He believes that "faith" is a misnomer; the committee shouldn't encourage a study of "faith," says Pinker, when what they obviously mean is "religion." He takes umbrage at placing "faith" and "reason" side by side, arguing that it falsely elevates the former to the status of the latter.
Professor Pinker misses an important distinction between "faith" and "religion." Faith is no mere euphemism for religion. An individual's interpretation of their religion might be called their faith. Religion then is what happens when a group of believers come together and share their faith. Both merit academic study. Where religion may focus on scripture and shared practices, a study of faith would provide a window into a particular individual. For instance, we examine Dr. Martin Luther King's faith for clues into his vision of social justice, or take a closer look at the faith of our founding fathers for insights into how our society ought to deal with religion.
Pinker's other gripe-that faith and reason are an unequal pair-exposes a lack of respect for the intellect of people of faith. With nearly 90 percent of the American public declaring themselves as people of faith, it is essential that a liberal arts education-which seeks to enhance the understanding of the human condition-wrestle in some way with faith. After all, even if Pinker believes that they cannot occupy the same domain, a fair share of his colleagues would likely identify themselves both as people of faith and people of reason.
Another of Pinker's major objections to the new "Faith and Reason" distribution recommendation is the isolation of religion as a pervasive social force when so many other factors contribute to pertinent social issues-race, economics and class for example. In a recently published op-ed piece in the Harvard Crimson, he belittles the influence of faith in people's everyday lives and the effect of faith on the mind, body and pocketbook.
Even if he personally disagrees with it, Pinker shouldn't ignore religion's impact. In light of recent global events there is perhaps no more important time for such a course requirement. We have already seen signs that the great divides we will be called to heal in the coming century will be across religions. It has proven to be a formidable political force, a strong economic tool and a crippling psychological adversary. Though there are clearly other forces that impact social issues, they have often had greater airtime in the academic community than religion.
Faith uniquely affects all people, including the irreligious. And the understanding of faith issues is too important to slip through the cracks of a university's curriculum in our religiously charged world. Despite all this, most predict that Harvard will not adopt the recommendation to add a "Faith and Reason" requirement for their undergraduates-but should Duke consider a similar change?
It turns out that until the late 1960's, there was a "Faith and Reason" requirement of sorts-every student took an "Old Testament" course during their first semester, followed by the "New Testament" second semester. These classes were seen as benign graduation requirements by the student body, and the administration defended them by citing the influence of the Bible on English literature and other cultural phenomena.
Indeed, the mission statement of the University begins, "The aims of Duke University are to assert a faith in the eternal union of knowledge and religion"-our society has certainly become more secular since these words were put on paper, but isn't there some merit to religious knowledge?
Where are we left on this debate as 21st-century scholars? I believe the Duke University of the 1960's was on the right path. Religion still deserves a place in our requirements in order to provide a fuller understanding of the world, whether we consider ourselves people of faith, people of reason or both.
Emily Thomey is a Trinity junior. Her column runs every other Thursday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.