This post was written by Mark Hansard on May 29, 2007
I have begun reading Julie Reuben’s The Making of the Modern University, and Reuben’s book (so far) is a fascinating look at the secularization of the university in the 19th century. The book is based on insights from the sociology of knowledge, thus it is really a historical study of the sociology of the secularization as it occurred.
The first chapter, entitled “The Unity of Truth,” explains the educational philosophy of the early 19th century, and how it fell apart near the end of that century. What caught my eye was the robust view of knowledge that professors and university presidents believed at that time. According to Reuben, they believed not only that all knowledge in different fields could form a coherent whole, but also that its pursuit would lead to a good and more virtuous life. All knowledge led to better action. In fact, she says, university leaders at that time believed that the “the good, the true, and the beautiful were interconnected, and that successful education promoted all three together” (12). All knowledge inevitably lead to worship of God and an understanding of his wisdom.
Part of this 19th century construct was natural theology, which in this case was not merely the admission that design was detectable in nature, thus pointing to a Creator. It consisted of stronger claims such as: the harmony of nature reflected God’s wisdom, that the more we understand of nature the more we can understand God’s character, and that, as one professor put it, “the knowledge of God, derived from the study of nature, is adapted to add greatly to the impulsive power of conscience” (20). In other words, a study of nature would strengthen virtue in the student.
This view of natural theology was of course obliterated with the Darwinian revolution, and threw universities into a crisis of what sort of educational philosophy they would now embrace. Darwin highlighted the view that nature was “red in tooth and claw,” a savage contest in which only the fittest survive. It was difficult to see the beauty and harmony in such a struggle. Thus, natural theology was dead, and the idea of the unity of truth with it.
Certainly, the 19th century view of natural theology was incorrect, because it didn’t take into account all of what was observable in nature. There is, of course, much disharmony in nature, and it is no doubt a huge exaggeration to say that we could understand moral truths and God’s character from nature (it seems that the Fall, in such a system, is forgotten. And it’s important to note that, in rejecting this view of natural theology, it isn’t necessary to conclude all natural theological arguments are untrue).
Yet, I can’t help thinking that somehow, too much was thrown away. We no longer have “universities” in the sense of a unity of truth coming from a diversity. We really have “diversities,” plain and simple, in which the ideas taught in most departments contradict the ideas taught in others. There is no coherent educational philosophy today that unifies the departments together as a whole.
But even more serious is the loss of belief that moral knowledge is possible. There is no wisdom (in the ancient sense which Plato and Aristotle discussed) in the universities today, because there is no way to know what the good life is, how life ought to be lived. Such things, since they no longer constitute part of the curriculum, have simply been lost. Is it any wonder there is so much moral confusion among us?
I do not pretend to have the remedy to this situation, as complex as it is. Clearly there are many parts to a solution. But it does seem to me that part of the solution is taking Scripture seriously in the integrative task. If Christian thought doesn’t constitute knowledge, how is it ever to be taken seriously in the academy? If we don’t do something, who will?
Part 2 Part 3
|
