Reinvigorating rationality

The Core Curriculum is an offspring of the Enlightenment—a movement championed by Immanuel Kant, who characterized it with the motto, “Have the courage to use your own understanding.” Columbia undergraduates read books that inspired and were inspired by the Enlightenment. The Core emphasizes the Enlightenment’s essential beliefs of rationalism, classical liberalism, analytic thinking, and humanism—or, in other words, the idea of free, self-motivated thought. It reflects, as Kant said, “The courage to use one’s own mind without another’s guidance.”

Historical instances, especially in Core readings, that clearly violate the principles of rational, analytic thought always stand out to me. A memorable example is the Catholic Church’s treatment of Galileo, which Core students read about in Contemporary Civilization. Galileo was put on trial for asserting that the Earth revolved around the sun and for offering a theological proof of science. Subsequently, he was punished by the church for attempting to think freely about religion.

I suspect that the majority of people who read the Columbia Daily Spectator share my aversion towards a time when the church repressed and punished scientists. Still, is our present world vastly different? Yes, the church and its counterparts have lost influence since Galileo’s time, and mainstream religious institutions have greatly softened their opposition to rational thought (for example, John Paul II accepted evolution in 1996, and, as Mitt Romney’s imminent nomination brings to mind, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints reversed its racial policies in 1978). At the same time, fundamentalist religion still has a great deal of influence. Many of its spokespeople—who unfortunately include many influential American figures—preach creationism, false armageddons, and intolerance.

We live in a world where many aspects of religion are synonymous with indoctrination, conformism, and ignorance, although I want to make it very clear that I refer only to a minority brand of religion that has an incredibly disproportionate amount of influence. How is the church’s rejection of heliocentrism in the 17th century any more absurd than the rejection of evolution by several recent candidates for the “leader of the free world” in the 21st century?

The problem of fundamentalism arises when faith is abused. Faith, used positively, is a channel to spiritual enlightenment. It still adheres to Kant’s philosophy of personal enrichment as a faith of understanding. At the same time, it is used negatively is an abandonment of rational thought, when spirituality is substituted with submission to dogma. This type of faith is the antithesis of rational, liberal thought. Due to whatever elusive pillar of human nature, abused faith is the easiest to spread, to the point where only 39 percent of Americans, as of a 2009 Gallup poll, believed in the theory of evolution. Fundamentalism spreads.

A central aspect of the Core Curriculum is theology, and we read religious texts ranging from the Bible to St. Augustine’s works. The Core treats Matthew and Marx much differently, though. A student could discuss Marxism as a legitimate worldview in a class like Contemporary Civilization. If he were to discuss the divinity of Jesus as truth, though, he would likely be ostracized. When we read religious texts, we detach divinity from them, treating them as just another human creation.

Is this fair? Should we treat Christianity as a legitimate worldview when we read the New Testament, or do the same for Islam when we read the Quran? Should religion be viewed as academically acceptable as the secular worldviews we read in the Core? My answer is an emphatic no.

All of the worldviews presented in the Core Curriculum are based in the principles of the Enlightenment, from those of Plato to those of Nietzsche. Above all else, every thinker in CC believes in the power of induction. They all accept that any truth can be rationalized through reason and logic. Religious texts are a different matter. They employ massive leaps of faith, such as accepting that Moses received the Ten Commandments from God or that Christ was resurrected. To accept religions as being academically acceptable, the core tenets of religion—the existence of God and the historical presence of divine figures—would also have to be accepted as academically acceptable.

The point of Enlightenment is the act of questioning. Faith can jump right to the answer, but thought provides understanding. We read the Bible and Quran in the Core as points of reference, but the important religious texts are written by Aquinas, Descartes, and Averroes—thinkers who accept the existence of God but reach that acceptance through reasoned proofs rather than on the crux of faith. To accept religion immediately as a legitimate worldview presents a clear shortcut—a retreat from reason to faith. Instead, the Core treats theology as a question and allows us to reach our own conclusions by presenting religious arguments. I have no issue with people who believe in God, as long as they are building their faith with reason. To truly understand God, we must first question God.

The definition of Enlightenment, says Kant, is to use your own understanding. To surrender to faith without questioning is to make the same kind of irrational leaps that the 17th-century Catholic Church did with Galileo. In relying on faith alone, we abandon the principles of the Enlightenment and of the Core Curriculum.

Leo Schwartz is a Columbia College sophomore majoring in political science and Latin American studies. Rationalizing the Irrational runs alternate Mondays.