Two recent articles caught my eye.
In one, Stanley Fish (NYT contributor) comments on the decline of the humanities (philosophy, English, literature, poetry, and the like) in the contemporary university culture. More and more people seem to consider a college education a mere 4-year waiting period for a diploma and the right to say “I graduated from here!” to a would-be employer.
In the other, Matthew Parris (Times Online columnist), an atheist, theorizes that the best thing for Africa would be more Christian missionaries. He sees a cultural passivity in Africans that he thinks (1) is causing Africa’s problems and (2) can be solved by evangelical Christian faith. In short, it’s the individualism that he likes about this faith, because it would “liberate” the people from seeing themselves as subordinate to others, which, he thinks, will lead to change for the better.
What I’m so interested in is that both of these articles are about the usefulness, or utility, of worldviews (or the study of those sorts of things).
The utility principle can be construed in several different ways, but a common one looks like this:
The right (or moral, or ethical) thing to do is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
I think the key word (or the one that’s popping out to me right now) is “produces.” Useful things are productive; they make stuff that you can see and touch and feel. And the modern world is very familiar with production. The purpose of control exhibited by the modern world is to create utility (usefulness) to mankind. Now obviously, what you consider “useful” depends on your worldview.
My Point
How do we measure the utility of religion? How would we quantify the productivity of poetry or philosophy? The problem with this mindset is that it consumes non-quantifiable things into the quantifiable. A utilitarian worldview has to find a way to deal with other competing worldviews, and here it seems like the modern university is simply heading toward elimination of the humanities (if too drastic, the slope is heading downward at the very least – college should get you a job, right!?); and Parris’ atheism contracts Christianity to do some good work for Africa, not because God actually does exist, or because He offers truth, or because it’s an intrinsic good to worship Him.
Nope – I’m not a utilitarian. I think utility should always bow to the good and virtuous (e.g. killing an innocent person to appease an angry mob is wrong); and that utility can somehow play a redeeming role in the evil and vicious (e.g. lying to protect Jews in Nazi Germany; Christ’s atoning death to save countless others).
Getting a job tyrannizes lots of college students. Pity that we don’t value the pursuit of knowledge and a thoughtful mind for their own sake. And religion can be useful, but that’s not the point. Don’t be a Christian to escape hell, or to liberate Africa. Everyone should be a Christian because it’s good to fear and worship God and to believe true things about him.
Final thought on Parris’ idea: This bothers me even more than the humanities dying off for utility’s sake. African’s should become Christians to they can throw off their oppressors, liberate themselves, take things into their own hands, establish themselves as individuals, subordinate to no one. This sort of technical and rational control is exactly opposite to Christianity. The Christian certainly is a responsible individual, but can only exist as subordinate to God and others – that’s how we fulfill the first and second commandments. And the search for control is a fool’s errand; a myth astray, even. Parris seems to be conceding a major point to Christianity here, but I think (and I don’t want to be too too sure about this, but I’m willing to argue it here) he is giving a penny and taking a dollar. Or maybe he is just confused as to how it produces the good it does.
Christianity is good in and of itself, and that’s why it merits the world’s attention. Not so it can serve the modern agenda (or any human agenda for that matter).
