Its not what you think. I had the privilege of listening to a lecture (audio at the end of the post) given by Dr. Prothero Friday evening. (I know, how exciting is my life?) In it, he discussed his latest book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know–And Doesn’t (nutshell).
I could not have been more impressed. Not only does he present a good and plausible solution to fixing American religious illiteracy, he also handles the study of religion the way it should be handled, with care and nuance. As he said in his lecture, the study of religion should not be taught as the doing of religion, where one assumes the absolute truth of a religion. However, the study of religion should also not be done from a position of New Atheism, where one assumes that all religions are absolutely false and are considered a stain on mankind’s nice white shirt, one that desperately needs to be removed. Instead, the study of religion should come from a position that neither affirms not denies the tenants of religion.
He opened with astounding stats on the religious literacy in America. He gave the results of his now famous quiz. They were not good. For instance, some people could name only one gospel, and more than a few named Paul as one of the four.
It was interesting to hear the history side of the lecture as well. He traced our religious illiteracy to not only to the separation clause, but also to the replacement of the Bible as the text people used when learning how to read. This happened not in the “dreaded” 1960’s, but about 100 years earlier when catholics and protestants could not agree on what version to use in schools. He also credits the Great Awakenings and denominationalism.1 With the Great Awakenings came an emphasis on feeling instead of doctrine. This is the greatest legacy of the New Light Puritans (Jonathan Edwards included, despite his best efforts), Whitefield, etc. Denominationalism placed cooperation ahead of doctrine (rightfully, in my opinion) and this lead to a deemphasis on doctrine.
History aside, he also notes that politicians constantly evoke the Bible not only on the campaign trail, but also in arguments on the floor of the house and senate. Because of this brute fact, the populace should be able to evaluate these arguments. A class on the Bible as literature in high school would go a long way in helping this. He hopes that with increasing literacy in the Bible, politicians would no longer be able to say “The Bible says X on this current issue,” and get away with it.
Given the amount of violent clashes involving religion in the world, having the general populace educated in world religions2 has obvious benefits similar to the ones in the previous paragraph. So, there is a civic need for religious education. By “religious education” one is referring to the study of religion, not the doing of religion in schools.
He proposes two classes be mandated for study in high schools, one on the Bible as literature and one on the religions of the world.
I appreciated his critique of the New Atheists, such as Hitchens. A part of Prothero’s book review of Hitchens’ God is not Great that was edited out summed it up nicely.
(Prothero talking about the part of the view that was edited out of his review in the Washington Post) “[Hitchens] actually starts the book with a vinette about how he lost his faith at age nine. In the part of the review that was not published, I said that it was unfortunate that his views of religions [also] stopped at age nine. In other words, I think a lot of atheists think, they get fixated on a really stupid understanding of religion and then they spend 300-400 pages bashing it. Where if they had just spoken with any ordinary religious person, the ordinary religious person would have said, “Oh, yeah, of course, I don’t believe that….”
Now, of course Prothero is not arguing for theism or anything, just pointing out one of the problems with New Atheism’s method of arguing. One of Prothero’s most significant claims is while religion is the most destructive force on the planet, it is also the greatest force for good. So, it makes little sense to write it off as a mere delusion, even though it might be one. It was refreshing to hear a leading figure in the study of religion treat the subject matter with the respect it deserves, while not giving it a pass either.
