Difficult Dialogues: Rediscovering the Unifying Dynamism of Intellectual Integrity

With your smart phone, iPad, laptop, etc., go online to www.rwpoll.com. Enter Session ID: Hays Join Session. Leave data on Welcome page empty. Press Continue. Wait. Difficult Dialogues:Rediscovering the Unifying Dynamism of Intellectual Integrity • Steve Hays • Dep’t of Classics and World Religions • Ohio University, Athens

Difficult Dialogues concerning ReligionatOhio University • 2006 Ford Foundation grant to encourage religious dialogue post 9/11. • OU’s particular purpose • Not religious tolerance. • Rather self-criticism and mutual respect via thoughtful shared inquiry: intellectual integrity.

Today’s plan • Brief sample of an approach used in Difficult Dialogues concerning Religious Beliefs. Merely suggestive, probably not readily replicable at other institutions. • Description of pedagogical structure and financial model. Almost certainly adaptable to many disciplines and many institutions. Basic pedagogical structure: • a) Lead instructor provides content and guidance via readings, lecture, etc.; • b) Discussion leaders guide small-group dialogues; • c) Graders grade weekly journals and alert faculty and discussion leaders to students who may be in crisis. • d) Individual students engage their integrity by accurately reporting dissenting views, then testing beliefs (their own first) both in dialogues and in weekly journal entries.

An appeal to intellectual integrity • What can a university offer students to help them with questions of religious beliefs? • Not specific answers. • Intellectual values, skills, and experience. • Analogue of the acid bath: A gold heirloom in HCl.

Intellectual Incest:Belief without challenge becomes inbred(from Presidential Primary Season 2008)

The university is by nature an acid bath where we can escape intellectual incest and practice intellectual integrity • Our students and discussion leaders come to the class with beliefs about religion. • Some have acquired their beliefs from religious authorities (the priest, grandma, ...) • Some have learned their beliefs or attitudes from non-religious authorities or traditions (Richard Dawkins, grandpa, ...) • ------------------------------------------------------------------- • A very brief example lesson • beliefs about authoritative scriptures within religious traditions.

Poll Question #1.The Bible • The Bible is the infallible (unerring) source for God’s own truth. • The Bible is not infallible. Much of what it says is demonstrably untrue.

Poll Question # 2.Which of these books of the Bible would you assert is infallible/fallible? • Elijah • Nahum • Micaiah • All of them • None of them

Poll Question # 3.If a man lies with a woman having her monthly period, and has sex with her, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood; both of them shall be cut off from among their people. (Lev. 20:18) • This law is immoral and wrong. • This law must be true and good because it is contained in the infallible Scriptures. • This law used to be true and good but in Christian times it has been abolished, so now I am free to regard it as foolish and immoral.

The Succession Mythfrom Hesiod’s Theogony (700 B.C.) • Ouranos, the first king of the gods. He maintained his power by oppressing his offspring. Eventually Kronos castrated him because of his injustice • Kronos, the second king of the gods. He maintained his power by oppressing his offspring. Eventually, the Olympians led by Zeus overthrew him because of his injustice. • Zeus became king. Zeus distributed power among the gods and ingested Wisdom so that he would know what was right and wrong. Zeus is still king.

Poll Question # 4.About Hesiod’s Succession Myth • I don’t believe what the Greeks believed because science or responsible reasoning contradicts their belief. • I don’t believe what the Greeks believed because my religious beliefs contradict their belief. • I agree with the central belief Hesiod sets forth in this story.

Discussion(normally 30-40 minutes, preceded by reading assignment and 30-minute lecture) • Does rigorous thinking about these traditional religious texts (Bible, Theogony) • challenge some element of your personal beliefs; • and /or • cause you to listen more carefully to beliefs expressed in a religious tradition that you had previously been inclined to dismiss as childish or absurd? • I.e., Have you seen reason to suspect that some of your 24-carat Au might be pyrite, or that what you took as someone else’s fools gold might be the real McCoy?

Goals of the DD course • Not tolerance, but mutual understanding and deserved respect for valid insights • An escape from intellectual incest--the prison of “what every right person believes” • An experience of pursuing what is better, rather than trying to win arguments. [Socratic] • A deep awareness that others’ different beliefs often stem from a commendable commitment to something good. • A willingness to substantively challenge claims that don’t make sense in a way that is open either to changing one’s mind or continuing one’s challenge. • Extended experience of legitimately trusting the honesty and honor of “other” people and exercising one’s own honesty and honor: Integrity--what the university can do best. • An appreciation of ongoing creative tension.

Transferability to other topics of general and transdisciplinary interest • war/peace • climate change • social inequities (wealth, health care, ...) • food and population • capitalism, democracy, and justice, taxation • the benefits / dangers of science and technology

Discussion Leaders / Graders • Faculty • Faculty spouses • Retired faculty • Grad students • Community members

Challenges • Seriousness and personal honesty are difficult to elicit and maintain. • Risks: Personal crises, family tensions, depression. • Appropriate instructional space: moveable seating, 100+ capacity, appropriate acoustics.

Financial Scaling Assumed Rates: Tenured Professor: $20K ($100K / 5) TA: $5K ($15K / 3) Grader: $2000 Discussion Leader: $1300 * Graders always serve as discussion leaders and are paid for both services.

For further info • hays@ohio.edu

Difficult Dialogues: Rediscovering the Unifying Dynamism of Intellectual Integrity