Notre Dame's Curriculum Review, Part II | National Catholic Reporter

Notre Dame's Curriculum Review, Part II | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The counter point to St. John is that a branch of knowledge is doomed if removed from the curriculum is Astrology.  It is alive and well and only available in the best university book stores in the New Age section (and certainly not on Catholic Colleges).  Its lingering truth as a social science (rather than a physical one) is reaffirmed with every ably cast natal or synastry (couples) chart - not so much with horary astrology - which has no theoretical basis (even though billions swear by it too).  Theology, by contrast, depends on the choice to accept or reject the existence of God or a higher power as being over the natural world. With apologies to St. Thomas, only Catholic schools still act as if the five proofs of God have not been overcome. What is left is a decision of faith, taken both individually and collectively - and that is Theology.  Of course, St. John's point is interesting on scientific reality exists in the conversation about it.  Heideggar would be most impressed.



Scientism is not equivalent.  The scientific method is our friend and is is used in all kinds of disciplines, like political science - though sometimes too much. It is noticed that too much ability with mathematics, which is the language of science, is often related to the most severe form of mental illness, schhizophrenia.  As a method, however, it is much more reliable than the discourse structure of the Summa.  Still, it is not the place of science to poo-poo theology because the real standard of proof, once evidence has been dealt with, is individual or group choice.  In other words, faith.



Of course, if scientism or atheism (and is wild child, Satanism) do exist, they are also about individual or group choice, which all sounds like the Cultural Theory of Mary Douglass and Aaron Wildavsky are the correct method of anlayzing both.  I am not saying that the Theory answers Theological questions - but it is wonderful in looking at how theology exists for individuals and groups.  As for Eugenics, that was straight up individual and group racism - Cultural Theory can examine this as well.  It is also useful in examining why some believers in religion are looked at as less than sophisticated - especially the Fundamentalists of all faiths - from Liberty University to ISIL and its Wahabist backers.  That is not why we continue to study Theology.



We continue to study it because of our group identity and because it is interesting if presented well.  If the craft of the faculty is not good - especially if knowledge is directed by authority rather than reason and the beliefs of the entire group - then it will be regarded as fascism and it will die - a lesson for those bishops and Vatican bureaucrats would dictate what is discussed in the Theology curriculum.  It is ironic that the thing that makes a University Catholic is most at risk from the leaders of that Catholic Church.  Of coruse, this is nothing new.  The whole concept of liberal arts and a free university is about keeping authority at the gates.  As for love and desire on college campuses, there is no danger of that going anywhere, even in non-coeducational institutions (like Major Seminaries).  Such things are part of our nature that we could not shed if we wanted to - and we don't want to. The form of desire that is for God is also intrinsic to us - even Atheists form groups out of mutual love - and where there is love, there is God.