This the article just published at www.PhilosophyOfReligion.org
What can philosophy of religion offer to the modern university? Quick answer: Teach an experiential philosophy of living in truth, beauty, and goodness.
A new opportunity on the horizon builds upon one of philosophy’s classical functions, interdisciplinary reflection. Philosophy of religion courses that include units on science and religion, philosophy and religion, religion and the arts, and religious ethics already bless the university.
But more can be done to mine the interdisciplinary potentials. Philosophers of religion can pioneer a new approach to education in meaning and value. Philosophy is the premier academic discipline when it comes to interpreting meaning, and philosophy of religion is philosophy’s specialty best suited to probe the range of values cherished as supreme by diverse individuals and groups.
Two more ingredients will enhance philosophy of religion’s outreach to the university: a philosophy of living in truth, beauty, and goodness, and an experiential approach to education. Let me explain.
Truth, beauty, and goodness are qualities of divinity that we can live. Truth is the supreme value that lures and rewards thinking. “Truth” here does not connote an absolute; rather, like a living cell, it is both sturdy and flexible, trustworthy and adaptable. Truth has a spiritual core, a scientific periphery, and a philosophical bridge between the two. The image comes with a caveat, however, since philosophy’s bridge does not function as a passive supporter of whatever traffic would march across it bearing passionate beliefs regarding science or religion. Truths are acquired by experiment, interpretation, and faith—the methods befitting their correlated domains of reality. Science discovers truths of fact, philosophy truths of meaning, and spiritual experience truths of value.
Beauty is the supreme value that lures and rewards feeling; and joy registers our recognition of beauty. Such claims require expanded concepts of beauty and joy. Beauty is not confined to one aesthetic quality among others, from the humorous to the sublime; rather beauty embraces the spectrum of positive aesthetic values. Nor is joy a crystallized emotion; it varies from quiet contentment to enthusiastic celebration. Above all, beauty is a spiritual reality that reaches down to become perceptible in nature and to inspire artistic creativity.
Goodness is the supreme value that governs doing. The concept of the good must be expanded to include the right; and morality is here understood as an all-things-considered affair, just as excellent character integrates virtues drawn from every kind of activity.
The bonds that join truth, beauty, and goodness are hinted at in the connections between thinking, feeling, and doing—which do not transpire in a value vacuum. Students taking philosophy classes are typically seeking a higher quality of thinking. But neuroscience, psychology, and ordinary experience agree that these three basic human activations are interrelated. The parts of the brain that support thinking are connected with the parts that support emotion. The widespread applicability of psychology’s cognitive-behavioral therapy gives credence to the motto: Think better and you’ll feel better; feel better and you’ll act better. And we know from experience that thinking hardly flourishes when emotions are in turmoil and behavior seriously off track.
Thus it should be no surprise that education in thinking can be enhanced by including the other dimensions as well. This is what I found during my last fifteen years of teaching, when all my classes were centered on experiential projects, from introduction to philosophy, aesthetics, and ethics, to world religions, philosophy of religious experience, and philosophy of religion.
In order to make project-centered teaching accessible, I went to great lengths to be supportive of each student and to make the projects open to all regardless of their beliefs. I would select the most widely appealing teaching in whatever philosophy or religion we were studying, propose that for their projects, and repeatedly encourage them to modify that teaching as needed, to make it more religious, less religious, differently religious, or more secular, less secular, or differently secular—until each person had an idea that he or she felt good about applying in their lives. I would mention that the greatest growth in a project comes from focusing on one’s front burner issue, one’s biggest growth challenge (if it is psychologically wise to do so). After six weeks, students would turn in an experience report narrating what they did, what happened as a result, and what they learned, as related to the readings. Over the years, an estimated two-thirds reported a transformative breakthrough. Skepticism, for example, about the reality of these values vanished as students pursued what they found to be cool, awesome, or in other ways personally compelling.
In some courses, one of the projects was on spiritual experience. I would give them a choice between conscious breathing and centering prayer, and was happy to discuss other practices. After three weeks, remarkable experiences would begin to occur, and I would mention the possibility of complementary explanations: biological, psychological, and spiritual.
Philosophy has produced countless books and articles on truth, beauty, and goodness, taken singly, in pairs, or all together, and innumerable discussions relevant to the philosophy of living. Religions have libraries of texts on supreme values and how to live them. Philosophy and religion all need these themes synthesized in a well-developed philosophy of living in truth, beauty, and goodness, but nowhere is one to be found—yet.
Next summer Cascade Books will publish my book, Living in Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. There I set forth concepts, say more about my approach in teaching, give excerpts from student papers, and present chapters on science, philosophy, spiritual experience, the beauties of nature, the arts, morality, and character. Each chapter highlights the relevant virtues of someone whose excellent qualities we may in some measure develop in our own lives: Darwin, Socrates, Jesus, John Muir, Bach, Albert Schweitzer, Jane Addams, and Pitirim Sorokin. Some of these discoveries have been shared in my weblog, http://ANewPhilosophyOfLiving.com. I make no claim to doing anything more than helping to construct the new philosophy of living, which is emerging through the work of many persons. Please help.
Aerial Photo of Kent State University by pacificboyksu in the public domain.
JUST AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a treat to hear from you, Ray! Glad you enjoyed it.
JUST AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a treat to hear from you, Ray! Glad you enjoyed it.
First, I am looking forward to your book!
What I really enjoyed in your treatment of philosophy of religion is how alive it is. I teach some philosophy of religion in my comparative religions course and have looked through many texts specific to this topic. Many have some great entries but there is also something about them that leaves me a bit cold: they often follow the format of idea/argument then counter idea/argument, and frankly I find this a bit trying, dull, and I worry that in this context or really any other it leaves students a bit dismayed. Granted, sometimes this is good, but in general it is not my style of introducing philosophy.
Do you worry, however, that in our ever-growing secularized culture that there may be some discomfort with engaging in such experiments? I can certainly see how these do not necessarily have to be related to any religion per se, but I still worry that if I veer too close to religious practice in my classroom I will get some backlash.
Nevertheless, you have piqued my interest in trying something similar to what you have described, especially within the context of the arts and humanities.
Very engaging blog!
Thanks Charles for reading and responding! Good to be in touch!
At Kent State I did not find secularism to be a problem since I worked so hard to make explicit and real my support for everyone “no matter what you believe or don’t believe.” When the days came to share anonymously from student experience reports, I would always take care to feature a diverse range of perspectives. You remember that the Kent State Philosophy Department made “diversity” much more than just a required slogan. Most of my world religions students, a majority of them Christians, were taking the conscious breathing option (the one associated with Buddhism) for the first project; and they loved it. I gave voice to interpretative options, indicated my own, and rejoiced. I cared much more about their taking a real, experiential forward step than about how they interpreted it, which is very much up to them.
First, I am looking forward to your book!
What I really enjoyed in your treatment of philosophy of religion is how alive it is. I teach some philosophy of religion in my comparative religions course and have looked through many texts specific to this topic. Many have some great entries but there is also something about them that leaves me a bit cold: they often follow the format of idea/argument then counter idea/argument, and frankly I find this a bit trying, dull, and I worry that in this context or really any other it leaves students a bit dismayed. Granted, sometimes this is good, but in general it is not my style of introducing philosophy.
Do you worry, however, that in our ever-growing secularized culture that there may be some discomfort with engaging in such experiments? I can certainly see how these do not necessarily have to be related to any religion per se, but I still worry that if I veer too close to religious practice in my classroom I will get some backlash.
Nevertheless, you have piqued my interest in trying something similar to what you have described, especially within the context of the arts and humanities.
Very engaging blog!
Thanks Charles for reading and responding! Good to be in touch!
At Kent State I did not find secularism to be a problem since I worked so hard to make explicit and real my support for everyone “no matter what you believe or don’t believe.” When the days came to share anonymously from student experience reports, I would always take care to feature a diverse range of perspectives. You remember that the Kent State Philosophy Department made “diversity” much more than just a required slogan. Most of my world religions students, a majority of them Christians, were taking the conscious breathing option (the one associated with Buddhism) for the first project; and they loved it. I gave voice to interpretative options, indicated my own, and rejoiced. I cared much more about their taking a real, experiential forward step than about how they interpreted it, which is very much up to them.
Brother Jeff,
I’m always amazed at the simple clarity with which you are able to elucidate such profound, and profoundly complicated, insights and observations, and then to map out a practical teaching application for it.
Yet, as regards university level philosophy of religion courses as you describe here, I do however, have a question: In all of this discussion of same, why do you make no mention of the all important element of epochal revelation as it applies to expanding and validating one’s personal comprehension of truth, beauty, and goodness? I would think it to be a central feature in your teaching equation, unless of course, it crosses some kind of academic line . . . does it?
All best and congrats on your new book,
Bob Ghen Sr.
Thank you for your words and your question. Without revelation–truth from a superhuman source–we could never get very far. Almost two years ago this weblog began to probe the experience of spirit-illuminated faith recognizing the spiritual flavor of truth (see chapter 3 in the forthcoming book). When you say “epochal,” I assume that you refer to something of world-historical importance, such as Jesus’ life on our world. But this raises the question about others who have also had a tremendous influence: Moses, the Buddha, and others. As a follower of Jesus and a lover of the Father whose spirit dwells within, I attempt to provision my soul with a framework to guide my attempts to discern what is true in any source, and what I can use in my work.
Brother Jeff,
I’m always amazed at the simple clarity with which you are able to elucidate such profound, and profoundly complicated, insights and observations, and then to map out a practical teaching application for it.
Yet, as regards university level philosophy of religion courses as you describe here, I do however, have a question: In all of this discussion of same, why do you make no mention of the all important element of epochal revelation as it applies to expanding and validating one’s personal comprehension of truth, beauty, and goodness? I would think it to be a central feature in your teaching equation, unless of course, it crosses some kind of academic line . . . does it?
All best and congrats on your new book,
Bob Ghen Sr.
Thank you for your words and your question. Without revelation–truth from a superhuman source–we could never get very far. Almost two years ago this weblog began to probe the experience of spirit-illuminated faith recognizing the spiritual flavor of truth (see chapter 3 in the forthcoming book). When you say “epochal,” I assume that you refer to something of world-historical importance, such as Jesus’ life on our world. But this raises the question about others who have also had a tremendous influence: Moses, the Buddha, and others. As a follower of Jesus and a lover of the Father whose spirit dwells within, I attempt to provision my soul with a framework to guide my attempts to discern what is true in any source, and what I can use in my work.
He went to sleep tired and weary,
But not for long,
For his mind made inquiry.
So he decided to yield,
And to his surprise,
He was not here but there.
He could get there from here
His mind boldly declared.
It could go anywhere.
Jeff I believe that our world is due for a philosophic breakthrough and your knocking at this door of the new paradigm has been getter louder and louder. Surely the new philosophical door will have to open as it explores and explains the meaning to the millions and millions of souls who will be living in truth, beauty, and goodness.
I am amazed by your intellectual reach and acumen. Surely we are all blessed to have you among us, making these profound contributions in the philosophical realm. Continue on brave and courageous with your persistent assaults
Dr. Perry
He went to sleep tired and weary,
But not for long,
For his mind made inquiry.
So he decided to yield,
And to his surprise,
He was not here but there.
He could get there from here
His mind boldly declared.
It could go anywhere.
Jeff I believe that our world is due for a philosophic breakthrough and your knocking at this door of the new paradigm has been getter louder and louder. Surely the new philosophical door will have to open as it explores and explains the meaning to the millions and millions of souls who will be living in truth, beauty, and goodness.
I am amazed by your intellectual reach and acumen. Surely we are all blessed to have you among us, making these profound contributions in the philosophical realm. Continue on brave and courageous with your persistent assaults
Dr. Perry
Wonderful post, Jeff. Thanks a lot.
Always good to hear anything from you, Michael.
Wonderful post, Jeff. Thanks a lot.
Always good to hear anything from you, Michael.
Hello Jef.
I am happy that I read and listen your project
Thanks for writing. Glad someone saw it and found some good in it.
Hello Jef.
I am happy that I read and listen your project
Thanks for writing. Glad someone saw it and found some good in it.