Atheist at catholic college...

[drkitten]

I have just received my dream job - a tenure track position as a professor of education in which all of my family's needs will be met as long as I don't screw up. I will be teaching math and science methods courses for the education program.

Congratulations! Speaking as someone who has "been there," I recognize the scale of accomplishment that this represents, and I know how scarce tenure-track positions are. So before I get down to brass tacks -- relax, crack open the champagne, and have a quick glass for yourself and your family.

Now, down to the discussion:

BUT!! it is at a Catholic college - and I am a strong agnostic/weak atheist. I have talked to the the Father...er...pastor...er...head thingy of the church and he has stated that nothing is sacred and that everything...as long as there is a valuable discussion that validates both sides...can be discussed. Apparently the church looks at issues from both sides and regards education above all else.

First,.... Catholic schools tend to be very supportive of their faculty. Regardless of whether or not you "go career" there or you decide to work at this particular school for only three years and then find a tenure-track position at a different school (which is usually much easier, in the same way that banks love to lend money to people who don't need it), this sounds like a very good "first job." Even if you have theological disagreements with the Catholic Church as a whole, a paycheck is a paycheck and you can always go work for the People's State of Ann Arbor later....

Second, Catholic schools vary widely on how seriously they take their "Catholic" mission -- the Jesuit school at which I interviewed was actually delighted to have an unbeliever like myself apply because they looked forward to the cat-fights in the faculty lunchroom. They would have hired the Unabomber if he had been available. On the other hand, more conservative schools may have particular donors that they don't want to tick off or sacred cows that may not be gored. Ave Maria university, in particular, the one founded by the Domino's nutcase, may be a good example of "the dark side" of Catholic education.

But I taught for years at a Catholic university, under the supervision of an equally unbelieving department chair. No one cared.

The third point. You're a professor of education? You likely shouldn't be teaching "evolution" at all. Aside from the political risks, it's unethical. There's a whole biology department right across the fountain. If you know more about evolution than them, you're doing a disservice to the students by teaching from the wrong department -- and if you know less, you're doing them a disservice by teaching outside your expertise....

Congratulations! I look forward to reading your tenure book in five years!

 

[pgwenthold]

I would not expect any problems at a Catholic University based on course content, BUT I will caution you to watch out for the morality clause.

I have a friend who went up for promotion at a Catholic university. Her case was overwhelmingly approved all the way up through the president, but got rejected by the Board of Trustees because she got divorced while she was there.

They can do that, and there's no recourse.

So you have to be sure to keep your personal life clean. No shacking up, no publically known abortions.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I think that insofar as he knows the truth, the duty of any teacher is to teach it.

Any Jesuits on staff? Atheists to a man.

 

[pmurray]

But the issue is whether or not I lay low for a while and perhaps "convert" (what an ugly word!) the individuals at the college to truly understand what it means to teach science in the public schools ...

I don't understand. What's the issue? On what points do you have to compromise? What is it that you would like to say, but cannot because you are at a catholic school?

In any case, most school science courses are simply learning the facts of science - there's not much that's catholic/non-catholic about that. It would be nice to be able to teach the history of science, the scientific approach. But in the test-dominated world that is today's high schools, a teacher simply wouldn't have time even if they wanted to.

Still ...

If you want to sneak "stealth" skepticism into a class, the way to do it would be to criticise (as in: critique) loony new age stuff. Teach why we can be confident that fortune telling is nonsense. Sure: perpetual motion machines violate the 1st law, but why are we so sure that the first law really is a law of nature? Leave it to the kids to apply it to the nonsense that they read in the bible.

Another point:

The problem of recognising that the bible is nonsense is not really the domain of science. The scientific community really needs the humanities community to pick upthe ball on that one. The basic lesson - "don't belive everything you read" - is not a scientific one.

May I leave you with a quote from St Augustine:

... damn, I can't find it. It was along the lines of how silly christians who interpret the bible wrongly (ie: read the creation story and flat-earth inferences literally etc) do immense harm to the faith by saying nonsense that ordinary people know to be false. It's a good quote.

 

[pmurray]

In any case: science is Man's ongoning program of attempting to describe and understand the material world we live in. What was Adam's first task? To name the animals. And that's what science has been doing ever since.

Since God created the world, science and religion cannot be in conflict. Apparent conflicts are nessesarily caused by a faulty understanding of one or the other: on the one hand, scientists ignorantly claiming that one fact or other disporoves the existence of God; on the other, people foolishly projecting the biases and ignorances of their culture onto the truth of God.

The RC church has been butting heads with science (and losing) for years. It therfore has a rich literature of what to do about it. Why not do the job you are supposed to do, and genuinely show your students how to teach science and math in the context of a catholic education? As I said before - the kids will make up their own minds.

 

[bpesta22]

Hmmm, tough call.

Before I landed a tenure track gig, I considered applying for a position at a Weslyan college, until I read the application which required:

1) a letter from my pastor, and

2) a statement saying I neither swore, drunk or smoked (which reminded me, **** I left my cigs at the bar...)

and

3) A statement explaining how my lectures would get at biblical truths (odd for a professor of human resource management).

I think you could find catholic u's as scary as my example above, or as freethinking as any goddless state university.

If you haven't done so, you should see where on the spectrum your university falls.

Are they tolerant of gays? Would they hire a gay prof?

Do any women get tenure? Any black profs?

What's the student body like? Do students spend more time drinking or praying? check out the student life web site; perhaps go to ratemyprofs and look at how students rate their teachers.

Would you get fired if you were pro abortion?

Do they require prayer before or after class periods?

It wasn't clear to me if they know whether you're an atheist (or in the USA). If in the USA, they could fire you (or not give you tenure) because of your religious beliefs or lack thereof. If the Dean is indeed very religious, that could present problems...(or maybe it wouldn't).

Take advice from internet strangers with grains of salt, but if atheism is an important part of your life, I can't see being happy at a catholic u.

What if your dean saw you posting here, perhaps in a thread defending atheism? If that's something you'd have to hide, perhaps you give up to much taking the job.

On the other hand, paying bills seems more pressing short term than the cognitive dissonance created by your situation.

Good luck!

 

[Almo]

I was brought up catholic. We had the attitude that the head dude you talked to professes. If he says it's not a problem, then it's probably true. Catholicism appears to me to be a very tolerant religion in America.

BTW, I'm an atheist now.

 

[SirPhilip]

I have a quandry in my life journey and I would love to hear any suggestions from such an enlightened group of individuals.

I take it you aren't a lurker. Actual enlightened individuals bow and smile and s-it, we bicker. We bicker hardcore. We bicker so hard C-SPAN is thinking about giving this forum a reality show.

Next..

I have just received my dream job - a tenure track position as a professor of education in which all of my family's needs will be met as long as I don't screw up. I will be teaching math and science methods courses for the education program. BUT!! it is at a Catholic college - and I am a strong agnostic/weak atheist. I have talked to the the Father...er...pastor...er...head thingy of the church and he has stated that nothing is sacred and that everything...as long as there is a valuable discussion that validates both sides...can be discussed. Apparently the church looks at issues from both sides and regards education above all else.

The pederast lies. Christian theology, a form of fundamentalism, is a rigid one-sided religious outlook, with a brutal, disgraceful past and that now only accepts other cultures and traditions with a whisp of reluctancy because it is forced to.

I hope this is true, but I need to teach critical issues/evolution/religion is separate from science/etc. Do you think I should perhaps lay low for a while and make sure that I get tenure before I rock the boat - or should I go out - guns blazing - and damn the masses (er - no pun intended)? I think I know what I need to do, but since I have gotten my doctorate, I am not sure I am thinking clearly - with that whole ivory tower thing and everything.

Personally, I wouldn't even stay in such an enviornment. It won't be rewarding - unless you are working around religious moderates, the minute you express a secular outlook, you'll fall out of favor with those that do.

Thanks

Always here to help.

 

[Garrette]

Catholicism is tolerant until specifics are discussed.

That being said, if the head guy says "no problem" and you want the job, then I see nor moral issue with it. You've hidden nothing from then.

Whether or not you will be able to stand working in that environment is another issue and one which I can't address.

 

[pmurray]

All religions are tolerant when they are in the minority.

 

[drkitten]

The pederast lies. Christian theology, a form of fundamentalism, is a rigid one-sided religious outlook, with a brutal, disgraceful past and that now only accepts other cultures and traditions with a whisp of reluctancy because it is forced to.

Personally, I wouldn't even stay in such an enviornment. It won't be rewarding - unless you are working around religious moderates, the minute you express a secular outlook, you'll fall out of favor with those that do.

Whoa, dude. As "Real Genius" put it, "there are lots of decaffienated products on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."

First, I think you're completely misrepresenting both Catholicism and "Christianity," and obviously doing it from the perspective of a complete outsider. Many -- I might even suggest most -- of the Catholic colleges and universities are run by the "religoius moderates" that your first paragraph suggests don't even exist.

But more significantly -- we're talking about a tenure-track position here. Almost by definition, those are rewarding. There are few things in this world as rewarding as not starving and having a roof over your head. Even if you don't find the environment ideal, Catholic universities are usually good spots to start a career because they tend to be very supportive of junior faculty and will provide the resources that you need to establish yourself. A two-year hitch at a Catholic university and then moving up to Enormous State U. is often a better career path than going straight to ESU (where you're less likely to get a foothold).

 

[ceo_esq]

May I leave you with a quote from St Augustine:

... damn, I can't find it. It was along the lines of how silly christians who interpret the bible wrongly (ie: read the creation story and flat-earth inferences literally etc) do immense harm to the faith by saying nonsense that ordinary people know to be false. It's a good quote.

Here it is, from Augustine's work on the interpretation of the Book of Genesis:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

 

[Almo]

Wow. That St. Augustine person was sharp.

 

[Sinisterdan]

I’m a recovering Catholic and did my undergraduate work at a Catholic, liberal arts university, so I know a little bit about this.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
Generally, the church is pretty good about keeping religious doctrine out of matters of secular education – they have a far more serious tradition of being good educators than many fundamentalist sects. While it might be true that the current pope is soft on intelligent design, that’s a matter of church policy and not a part of its participation in education.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
I know (actually he’s a good friend) a person in similar condition to those you’ve described. My friend teaches anthropology at the same Catholic school that I once attended and is firmly in the agnostic camp. In his experience, its too risky for a university to appear too blurry when dividing its secular teaching from the god business; it lowers enrollment and kicks them in the coin purse.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>
I would suggest that honesty is the best policy and if that fails, sue them.

 

[bpesta22]

Religious organizations are exempt from the civil rights act. They could indeed fire him just because he is an agnostic.

See Mormon church v. Amos or
Feldstein v. christian science monitor.


In the Amos case, the guy was a janitor, fired for not keeping right with his religion. Even though his position was nonreligious-- a janitor-- he lost the case, because, well, religious organizations are exempt from the CRA.

 

[SirPhilip]

Principles of Integrity.

Whoa, dude. As "Real Genius" put it, "there are lots of decaffienated products on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."

No comment.

First, I think you're completely misrepresenting both Catholicism and "Christianity," and obviously doing it from the perspective of a complete outsider. Many -- I might even suggest most -- of the Catholic colleges and universities are run by the "religoius moderates" that your first paragraph suggests don't even exist.

I keep my stereotypes up to date, thank you very much.

Catholic: "Believing in Christ is the practice of emulating his best qualities, being charitable, and abolishing sin from one's life."
Modern Christian: "If the Earth wasn't 6000 years old, I'd be lost spiritually. Thankfully Christian Scientists have proved this. Pick up [Insert Former Car Salesman's Name Here]'s book, for only $29.95."

But more significantly -- we're talking about a tenure-track position here. Almost by definition, those are rewarding. There are few things in this world as rewarding as not starving and having a roof over your head.

You happen to be talking to someone who considers fasting and living in primitive conditions uplifting activities.

Even if you don't find the environment ideal, Catholic universities are usually good spots to start a career because they tend to be very supportive of junior faculty and will provide the resources that you need to establish yourself. A two-year hitch at a Catholic university and then moving up to Enormous State U. is often a better career path than going straight to ESU (where you're less likely to get a foothold).

There are also fewer intellectually draining things in this world as being around a college fellowship. If he is an agnostic or secular academic, it's unlikely he's not going to enjoy teaching in that enviornment - assuming he can even teach in an honest manner, in which case I'd be surprised if he will be treated fairly.

 

[drkitten]

I keep my stereotypes up to date, thank you very much.

Catholic: "Believing in Christ is the practice of emulating his best qualities, being charitable, and abolishing sin from one's life."
Modern Christian: "If the Earth wasn't 6000 years old, I'd be lost spiritually. Thankfully Christian Scientists have proved this. Pick up [Insert Former Car Salesman's Name Here]'s book, for only $29.95."

Er,.... no. You don't.

Let me ask you this -- if your stereotypes are so "up-to-date." Which are the three most conservative Catholic schools of higher education in the United States today? Which are the three most liberal?

There are also fewer intellectually draining things in this world as being around a college fellowship. If he is an agnostic or secular academic, it's unlikely he's not going to enjoy teaching in that enviornment - assuming he can even teach in an honest manner, in which case I'd be surprised if he will be treated fairly.

Again, you appear to have no knowledge or experience of late 20th-century Catholic higher education. (Let alone early 21st.)

 

[SirPhilip]

Er,.... no. You don't. Let me ask you this -- if your stereotypes are so "up-to-date." Which are the three most conservative Catholic schools of higher education in the United States today? Which are the three most liberal?

That's irrelevant. My point was, Catholic and Christian schools all have "moral" codes of conduct that an agnostic or secular teacher likely will find frustrating, especially if he is teaching any hard science which relates to naturalism. If not, what then distinguishes religious from non religious universities? Both Catholicism and Christianity harbor wrongheaded notions about nature; these are reflected in the curriculum. I'd also imagine that these schools have a hard time finding top notch teachers because of this issue.

Again, you appear to have no knowledge or experience of late 20th-century Catholic higher education. (Let alone early 21st.)

Aye, that I don't. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

[drkitten]

My point was, Catholic and Christian schools all have "moral" codes of conduct.

Not true. I can name several non-Catholic Christian schools that do not.

I can also name several Catholic (Christian) schools that do not.

For that matter, I can name several non-religious (unaffiliated) schools that do.

If not, what then distinguishes religious from non religious universities?

Many things, the exact specifics often depending on the specific school under discussion.

Both Catholicism and Christianity harbor wrongheaded notions about nature;

True if you look at the full extent of the doctrine.

these are reflected in the curriculum.

Again, it depends on the specific school. Similarly, the nature of the specific impact varies from school to school. At many Catholic schools, for example, the science curriculum is indistinguishable from that of a non-sectarian school. The only "reflection" of Catholicism is in a mandatory course on religion or theology or something in the core curriculum, something that Scott would not be involved in as an education professor.

I'd also imagine that these schools have a hard time finding top notch teachers because of this issue.

Again that depends on the school. In general, they don't.


I'll say it again. You have no knowledge or experience of late 20th-century Catholic higher education. You are blowing smoke on a subject about which you know little or nothing.

 

[SirPhilip]

Not true. I can name several non-Catholic Christian schools that do not. I can also name several Catholic (Christian) schools that do not. For that matter, I can name several non-religious (unaffiliated) schools that do.

Do what, thought policing?

Many things, the exact specifics often depending on the specific school under discussion.

Well, to avoid this exchange becoming further scattered, what could the original poster do to assess whether he wouldn't need to make any personal concessions and compromises of integrity due to thought policing?

Again, it depends on the specific school. Similarly, the nature of the specific impact varies from school to school. At many Catholic schools, for example, the science curriculum is indistinguishable from that of a non-sectarian school.

I'm aware Catholic schools strive to be moderate and keep both worlds seperate (though this defies any notion of biblical literalism), the question is though, fully? While I am more than willing to admit I jumped to conclusions, I have a hard time picturing someone like Professor Richard Dawkins teaching at a university with a religious foundation and not having frustration with students (not to mention faculty). I'm not discounting the idea one can't comfortably work at a Christian or Catholic educational institution, but "Religious" and "University" are two mutually exclusive terms (half your curriculum revolves around profound things like God hijacking donkeys and washing yourself with the savior's blood, and the other half, things that are logically consistent and sensical). This would require the university to adopt a completely metaphorical stance on doctrine; a position even the Vatican is being reluctantly forced to accept.

I'll say it again. You have no knowledge or experience of late 20th-century Catholic higher education. You are blowing smoke on a subject about which you know little or nothing.

I wasn't pretending I did. But Princeton's balance isn't universal. If you are going to play the knowledge and experience card, may I suggest making an educated assessment of the school he's talking about, and what he's likely to encounter?