The most surprising thing for me over the past few days as I’ve watched the comments heat up over my most recent post, is that I never expected it to be controversial. It actually never occurred to me that my statement that a person who takes the Bible as a literal truth disqualifies him/her self from serious historical inquiry would provoke disagreement. Strong disagreement, I should say. Hurt feelings and outrage.
I am torn between a desire to defend myself and a preference to not have to defend myself. These are tiresome matters because no one is going to change their minds and no middle ground can be achieved. There are other bloggers who would be happy to host such an endless and divisive argument, but not me. Really, I look forward to returning to more mundane subjects and to far fewer readers.
Consider yourselves forewarned: extremely boring blogging ahead.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 5, 2008 at 2:30 pm
historiann
Oh, come on–cowboy up, bittersweet one! The fight yesterday wasn’t vituperative (much), and many commentators kept coming back to see what others had written and to respond again. People didn’t get personal–it was an interesting discussion, and it made me consider how I would deal with this issue in my life as a faculty member. I agree with those who hew to the middle way. My instinct would be to support the student’s research interests in early modern history, which is very far away from even the youngest Young Earth creationist beliefs.
Moreover, we all hold some beliefs that are not supported by the evidence, if there is evidence to be had. Some people believe in angels, some believe in a literal heaven or hell, and some of us believe the Cubs will win the World Series one of these days. How far should we interrogate our students and colleagues to ensure that they hold sufficiently “rigorous” evidence-based opinions? Why make Young Earth creationism the hill you want to die on in a History department, when it’s really irrelevant to what we do? (That said, it IS a problem in Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology courses, for sure.)
Finally, though, I agree with your main point at the top of the post that questioned “The Ethicist”’s advice, especially when it came to academe. He recently answered a question about a grad student’s obvious (and I believe admitted) plagiarism, and didn’t demand the student’s immediate rejection from the graduate program. That was just shoddy, and you’re right–why should we take advice from that guy?
February 6, 2008 at 12:33 am
Sisyphus
I don’t know — maybe I should defer to an actual historian(n), but I think that the scholarly study of history, at the PhD and professor level, requires an understanding of what history is and how it is constructed at a much more complex and rigorous level than the undergrad. So, while it doesn’t really matter what an undergrad believes when you are trying to get them to a) do the reading and b) understand that people can make different arguments about said reading and support it with evidence, I think that to believe in the young earth theory without seeing the ways that theory conflicts with many of the tenets of the modern study of history. I would _not_ say that faith in general, a belief in God, or even evangelical Christianity, would in any way disqualify someone from a PhD in history, but the specific declaration of the young earth theory really worries me.
Tenured Radical had an interesting relevant post recently on the fundamentalist push for a “Religious History Week” to be enacted as law —- she pointed out the denial of historical specificity in favor of an allegorical reading of all events as expressions of god’s will taht I read as connected to YE theory.
February 6, 2008 at 1:16 pm
historiann
No deference necessary in the blogosphere! But, I’m someone who has changed her mind a LOT in the years since I was an undergraduate and new graduate student, so I would be willing to assume that education would work in similar ways on other people. (This is not to say that “more education = you will agree with me now,” just that people change over time, and especially with exposure to advanced study.)