TWU in its own words: special no-straw edition
By Trinity Western University's own admission, it takes many of the big questions of life as already answered.
My previous post was accused of portraying religious scholars as straw men, an accusation levelled at me by faculty and alumni of Trinity Western University itself.
Related: Academic freedom at Trinity Western. Also see: The end of the religious university? And: Christian universities are necessary.
In response, I have compiled the following, from TWU’s own website, explaining its views on education. There, TWU makes gestures towards openness, but those gestures are constantly contradicted by statements indicating that many of the answers to life’s most important questions have already been provided and no new answers are needed or possible. Consider (emphasis mine):
“Both individually and corporately Trinity Western wholeheartedly embraces all the Bible teaches in regard to faith, ethical commitments, and way of life, believing it to be the ultimate standard of truth and hope.”
“We base our teaching and scholarship on revealed truth, and encourage our students to consider carefully the basic worldview tenets of a biblical Christian faith.”
[TWU’s philosophy] “ invites students to consider and embrace evangelical Christian faith. One goal of our mission is to develop thoroughly Christian minds.”
“Distinctive Christian approaches are usually more evident in the humanities than in the natural sciences. But even for the latter we are engaged in faith-based learning.”
“Faith-based and faith-affirming learning intends to lead students to know God and His world.”
“We believe the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life.”
“The Bible is sourced in God in a unique way that cannot be said of other literature. As a final, finished product the biblical scriptures are “without error” and can be relied on with full confidence as an authoritative guide to Gods message of salvation and the manner of living appropriate for Christian people.”
“Scripture will be of little value if it does not govern how we live out our lives both as individuals and as a corporate body. Therefore we gladly embrace it not only for our doctrinal commitments, but also for our daily lives.”
“Therefore, the faculty and staff of Trinity Western University strive to encourage confidence in the authority of the Bible and respect for its beauty, truth, and unique and divine character. We deplore an indoctrination approach that discourages authentic investigation, but we are satisfied that the truth of the Scriptures can meet any challenge.”
“Increasingly we are facing a ‘crisis of authority’ in every area of society which has resulted in a breakdown in such areas as government, business, educational institutions, the family, and even in the church. In contrast to this approach, our loyalty to Scripture requires us to reject the assumption that there is no absolute truth to which human beings must submit.
“general knowledge in itself is not sufficient to lead to salvation. That is why we need a verbal divine utterance by which God not only supplements our knowledge of the created order, but by which he also corrects our interpretation of it. Thankfully, God has given us such an authoritative Word in Scripture, the ‘complete revelation of His will for the salvation of human beings.’
So, to summarize, TWU welcomes open debate on all subjects except the following:
- Is there a God? [yes]
- If there is, what is the nature of God? [see Bible]
- Does the Bible have any special status? [yes]
- Are all religions equally valid? [no]
- Are there parts of the bible that are immoral such as its denigration of women or its endorsement of slavery? [no]
- Where did the universe come from? [God]
- How did life begin? [God]
- How does one live a moral life? [see Bible]
- What is a meaningful life? [see Bible]
- Can we fully understand the world through experience and reason? [no]
- Is there such a thing as truth? [yes]
- What is truth? [see Bible]
While I am sure that on an individual level, TWU has many fine faculty members doing good work, I cannot see how, in general, a student can pursue a skeptical, open-minded course of study on these vital questions when the university itself proclaims these questions to have been settled. Similarly, I cannot see how a student who submits an essay questioning, say, the existence of God could be graded fairly given the ideological framework of the university.
To be sure, all professors have biases and ideology, but when an institution deliberately sets out to ensure that all faculty have the same biases and ideologies, it drastically reduces the opportunity for real intellectual growth, the opportunity afforded to students who are exposed to conflicting points of view on the most important questions that face us.
Honestly, David, you pose a good question, and I look forward to hearing from others that have given this more thought. As I see it, when a thinking person asks that fundamental question, “Why is there something, rather than nothing?” (however it might occur in the given circumstances), he or she begins a journey that involves a multi-faceted reasoning. Some come to naturalist materialism, and land on that as their presupposition, taken in faith (based on certain empirical evidence). Others land on the idea of God, and go on from there. This “going on” may involve the reasoning required to interrogate (not necessarily suspiciously) the faith they are familiar with, and to test other ones out. It involves a great deal of rational inquiry, along with other ways of reasonably testing out if something is true (it’s a whole-person concern).
If the Bible is taken as “inerrant” among Christians, to me (I don’t know about the admin at TWU) it means that it is truthful “testament” given in context (as all truth is) to be fathomed and interpreted, the latter being an ongoing work that has occupied scholars and theologians for thousands of years. The presupposition is that the Bible is “telling the truth”–which is sometimes expressed as literal meaning, sometimes mythological, sometimes metaphorical, etc. Therefore, inerrancy is not delimited to a modern “scientific” methodology, contrary to fundamentalist thinking, though it does include it among other truth-tests. It depends on which methodology is called for (the hard work of interpretation). Seems to me this is why Gadamer, Polanyi, et al have been brought into the discussion very early on…
As for academic freedom–I reiterate that the big question is getting bigger for me: how do we define freedom in the university? And what definition best moves reason forward in its pursuits?
Kara, I think the journey of rational inquiry you described is precisely what can’t take place if a particular conclusion is prescribed for you.
It’s one thing that the students are allowed to inquire for themselves and reach different conclusions, which it appears most current students are arguing, but clearly professors at TWU are not free to take that journey for themselves. (If anyone argues that they are, what on earth does it mean to be bound by the TWU Statement of Faith?)
I’ll add at this stage that I can believe TWU students get a good education. My own degree in theology and biblical studies was from a conservative Bible college, and I too was exposed to the full array of critical views. So I’m not unsympathetic to the many students who have come here to defend their education.
But teaching is only one aspect of a university. A major aspect is research. Academics are expected to engage in debates, write papers, attend conferences, argue positions, publish findings and contribute to current research. How can they do this with integrity when they are in an institution that requires them never to reach conclusions outside a very tight doctrinal framework?
David, I hear you saying (forgive me if I’m misreading) that rational inquiry for the profs. is inhibited if they presume that the Bible is telling the truth. But why is it so, if they have a critical hermeneutic of recovery, rather than one of pure suspicion, and if the “truth” of the Bible is given a more capacious meaning. Apparently, at TWU both the physical and human sciences are able to move forward in their inquiry quite effectively–look at the original Macleans article and see how much research money TWU is awarded. If you’re really interested, I guess you also could go on the website and look into the scholarship that’s going on there…
Kara, the same applies if you assume *any* document is 100-percent truthful. It just isn’t a scholarly presupposition. Like any document, it is a bunch of claims, and needs to be critically examined to determine the truth or otherwise of those claims. If you are obliged to believe a document is inerrant (even if you have a “capacious” definition of inerrancy), it must be interpreted a certain way.
Imagine the implications if I insisted, for example, that the only way we were allowed to interpret the words of Dr Pettigrew, the author of this article, were with the assumption that his words were wholly without error and completely authoritative. There’s only so much nuance you can give a position like that, and no matter how nuanced your definition becomes, you’re still approaching human words from fundamentally unscholarly assumptions. And my conclusions would be fundamentally flawed, possibly irredeemably nonsensical, as a result.
Last post: if you claimed that Dr. Pettigrew’s document was inerrant, and tried to found a university with that being one of your cornerstone presuppositions, I suspect you wouldn’t get very far. But, for some reason, history shows that taking the inerrancy (truth-telling quality) of the Bible has led to the extremely successful founding and sustaining of universities around the world. I’m just truly curious about why that is…
“But, for some reason, history shows that taking the inerrancy (truth-telling quality) of the Bible has led to the extremely successful founding and sustaining of universities around the world. I’m just truly curious about why that is…”
I would point out a few things in response. First, one could also find instances where belief in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible has had very destructive effects.
Second, one could find many instances in theology and biblical scholarship (I’m focusing on this because it’s my subject) where the assumption of inerrancy has led to unscholarly conclusions or obscured the actual meaning of the text.
Third, “history shows that X has led to Y” is an interpretation; history might show that X was followed by Y, but it would be a fallacy to assume X caused Y.
Fourth (related to the third), inerrancy has not been the only quality of Christianity that could have led to successful universities. And it’s quite possible Christians have established good universities *despite*, rather than *because of* inerrancy.
Fifth (again related), you point to universities that have been sustained. How many of those that have lasted have done so retaining a conservative view of the authority of Scripture (inerrancy)? What does that tell us?
Granted–perhaps I should have said “allowed” for the extremely successful founding and sustaining of universities, rather than “led to”! But this is the whole issue at stake with CAUT. The implication is that it is not possible, when apparently, it IS possible for a university to hold these presuppositions and not be in contravention of a form of “academic freedom” that is fruitful. See Kelsey Haskett’s new post on the other blog site…or John Stackhouse.
Thanks for this exchange, and all the best.
Cheers, Kara. I’ll check out the other blogs. Best.
I have written some more about this subject here: http://rattiganwrites.blogspot.com/2010/01/trinity-western-academic-freedom.html
Pettigrew: “I cannot see how, in general, a student can pursue a skeptical, open-minded course of study on these vital questions when the university itself proclaims these questions to have been settled.”
I think what Prof. Pettigrew is saying here is that TWU professors lacks *psychological objectivity*–a certain detachment or absence of bias on certain questions (e.g., whether theism is true). Is psychological objectivity a virtue? It can be. But if the evidence one possesses is strong enough, it can actually be a serious mistake to remain unbiased in an area. For example, is Prof. Pettigrew unbiased and detached in his belief that AIDS is a disease, that 7+5=12, that child slavery is immoral, or that women are not intellectually inferior to men? I should think not. And that’s a very good thing too.
Clearly then, there are some things for which it would be an utter mistake to claim that we are or even ought to be psychologically objective. But notice that this doesn’t in any way preclude us from exercising *rational objectivity* — i.e., discerning good from bad reasons/evidence on a given topic, and holding our beliefs for good reasons. The professors at TWU may not be psychologically objective about (say) the question of whether truth exists–just as Prof. Pettigrew isn’t psychologically objective about the rights of the disabled, or the humane treatment of animals. It doesn’t follow that he (or they) cannot *rationally* assess all of the arguments that bear on a given question.
In fact, I’ll bet there are any number of questions like this that “have been settled” in his own thinking, and on which he is no longer psychologically objective. But then how can he help his students at Cape Breton “pursue a skeptical, open-minded course of study on these vital questions”? Answer: in the same way that TWU professors do: by focusing his students’ attention on the objective evidence for and against various ideas, as opposed to his professorial opinions. This is just the way things go with professors.
Richard Davis, PhD
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Tyndale University College
Dr. Pettigrew,
Please, correct me if I’m wrong in saying this but perhaps the issue that you have the greatest difficulty is with the fact that all TWU faculty members, both new and old to TWU must sign the statement of faith. Well what if the issue can be resolved by having a non-Christian professor at our school. How would you then feel? Supposing that one day Trinity got rid of that old “tradition”? How would you respond if Trinity decided to hire a professor who wasn’t a Christian to teach a class about…hmm… the New Testament?
I would appreciate it if Dr. Pettigrew addressed the questions posed to him by Dr. Davis here and in his other article.
Dr. Pettigrew,
Since it has been established that you should be addressed as “Doctor”, I feel that our Professor’s who have earned the same degree of merit (most of which have come from secular universities) should also be given the same respect.
Respectfully,
Maria Rempel
TWU Student
[...] others have recently picked up on it. See some of the Maclean’s online commentary on this issue here and [...]
Dr Davis makes a fascinating argument and one that I will consider as I write my next entry on professor bias.
But in this context, I think it misses the point. TWU’s published philosophy calls for its faculty to LEAD students to EMBRACE Christian doctrine (their words, not mine). So, I will say again to Dr Davis, Dr Spencer and any other faculty members from TWU: please provide specific ways in which you do that. How, specifically, in the course of rational assessment of your students’ arguments do you work to lead them to embrace Christian doctrine? If you don’t, will you publicly state that you think TWU’s policies should be revised?
Perhaps I have not been clear: I have no problem with Christian professors teaching at universities in general. But to insist that all professors be Christians and that they all be a certain kind of Christian seems to me like bad institutional policy, no matter what the practical realities on the ground might be. Even if the heroic faculty at TWU have universally maintained high standards despite their institution’s policies, the potential for abuse is never far. And if the faculty there are not leading students to embrace a particular faith, why advertise that they are? More worrisome: what could be done if any professor decided to take TWU’s stated policies at face value?
As for Maria’s concern, I take “Professor” to be a title equal in respect to “Doctor.” “Mr” is another matter, and before I addressed any academic as “Mr” or “Ms” or the like, I would want to be certain that he or she was neither a professor at rank nor held an earned doctorate. If I have applied a title to any faculty member at TWU that is inconsistent with his or her rank or qualification, please know it was unintentional and that I would be happy to set the record straight.
I suppose this is where we all disagree. We believe that our university thrives in part because of our institutions policies.
Prof. Pettigrew: “TWU’s published philosophy calls for its faculty to LEAD students to EMBRACE Christian doctrine (their words, not mine).”
Looking at the TWU language: it doesn’t say “LEAD students to embrace,” it says “INVITE them to consider and embrace.” And of course there’s a big difference between *leading* someone to say or believe something–which has a decidedly negative connotation (e.g., ‘leading the witness’)–and *inviting* them to first *consider* (i.e., assess and evaluate), and then if the evidence warrants it, embrace (i.e., believe) that very thing.
No doubt *leading* students to *embrace* propositions is improper and coercive, but it’s also an uncharitable interpretation of TWU’s expressed position. However, if the evidence warrants it, I see nothing wrong with inviting students to consider believing something.
For example, let’s pretend it’s 1605 and that you’re Johannes Kepler. You’ve just put the finishing touches on your three laws of planetary. Your mathematical calculations are flawless; further, they’re grounded in detailed astronomical observations. You can see that you have a proof and, if sound, that it shows the geocentric models of Aristotle and Ptolemy to be badly in error.
And now suppose you were speaking to a group of Aristotelian astronomy students. Question: would it be improper, unscholarly, or otherwise immoral for you to invite them to consider embracing your new astronomical model? I cannot see that it would. How otherwise could science make any progress?
Richard Davis, PhD
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Tyndale University College
Dr Davis is correct that TWU does not put “lead” and “embrace” together in the same sentence and I did not mean to imply that it did. But the TWU language does say lead in a related context:
“Faith-based and faith-affirming learning intends to lead students to know God.”
More over, TWU does not say that students should be asked to “consider embracing” Christianity (Dr Davis’ version in his Kepler example), but rather to “consider and embrace” evangelical faith. The “and” is not trivial, in my view. “Embrace” comes up again in another context, too:
“we gladly embrace it [scripture] not only for our doctrinal commitments, but also for our daily lives.”
So already, Dr Davis’ collegial, open-minded language (“invite them to consider embracing”) is a long way from the TWU language which moves from “consider and embrace” to “gladly embrace”.
As for the larger point, I promise I WILL have a comment on professors and personal views, soon. In the meantime, I would say that scientists have often been in a position where they were reluctant to consider abandoning old views which were firmly held, but then did change their views (often radically) when the evidence was too convincing to be ignored (the circulation of the blood, which contradicted a centuries- old ancient belief seems like an instructive example). In this way, scientific truths are always tentative, not ultimate (another TWU word). But I doubt that most religious scholars are so willing to revise their accounts of the universe or to see their positions as so provisional.
The Dalai Lama has said that he would seek to change the Tibetan Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation if it could be scientifically disproven. I would be willing to change my view and accept the existence of God, provided I was given enough evidence. Is Dr Davis willing to concede that if enough evidence was presented to him, he would abandon his faith in the Bible?
Prof. Pettigrew: “Dr Davis’ collegial, open-minded language (“invite them to consider embracing”) is a long way from the TWU language which moves from “consider and embrace” to “gladly embrace”.”
Whenever possible, I try to interpret the statements (/arguments) of colleagues in a way that represents their views in the strongest possible light. I think my “collegial, open-minded” interpretation, as Prof. Pettigrew calls it, is an attempt to do that. On the other hand, his strikes me as rather uncharitable.
Perhaps we can save a general discussion of the importance of holding beliefs *tentatively* in academic contexts for Prof. Pettigrew’s new blog post on professorial bias. This is a deep and important topic, and I look forward to hearing his views on the matter.
A quick final word. Prof. Pettigrew asks about my decision procedures for theory (/belief) rejection. This, too, is a complicated matter as recent work in the epistemology of science has shown. But if a short-and-sweet guiding principle is wanted, it would be this: “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence” (David Hume, Enquiry, Sec. X). The implications should be obvious.
That should do for now.
Richard Davis, PhD
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Tyndale University College
Thought Experiment:
There is a Muslim university that requires all faculty to sign statements of faith. These statements would, in no uncertain terms, regard the writings of the Quoran as facts.
Something like: “We believe the Quoran, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the Divine and final authority for all Muslim faith and life.”
Would anyone honestly believe that academic freedom actually existed in a university like this?
Other thought experiments:
String Theory University
Big Bang University (rival of the cross-town Steady State University)
String theory, Big Bang cosmology, and Steady State cosmology are claims about how the universe is, just as (for example) Christian doctrines are. If they’re controversial, then they’re to be investigated and argued about, not treated as bedrock principles of an institution devoted to discovery and education. If they’re not controversial, then likewise we don’t found a university distinctively premised on them: Air Exists University? 1=1 College?
Challenge: Explain why my parodies wouldn’t count as genuine institutions of higher learning and yet universities premised on religious claims do.
just when you think mankind has finally left behind that ancient way of thinking… in 2000 years even mormons will be able to justify their religion as facts and because of it’s age it won’t be disputed. Just like this fairy tale of a school. If you want to go to church on Sundays, fine. University is not bible school, and please stop making sports teams pray it seriously ostricizes the non-fundamentalist/non-psychotic students.