Why is the Task Force on General Education afraid of teaching religion? True, their report did recommend a reason and faith requirement, but the committee has clearly shied away from teaching religious principles and has treated the study of religion itself with contempt. Religion is not the focus of the reason and faith requirement, but rather a lens through which to view the modern world. For example, the general education report recommends classes such as “Religion and Democracy,” “Religion and Science,” and “Medicine, Spirituality, and Religion in Modern America.”

Although other required fields have worldly applications as significant components of their courses, their philosophies emphasize the importance of understanding the fundamental principles of those fields. For example, the science and technology requirement is standard in its expectation that “courses in this category should teach key scientific concepts and the principles underlying relevant technologies…” Another example is the description of the “United States and the World” requirement, stating that students should receive an “understanding [of societies’] origins and histories.” Clearly, the primary emphasis on these fields is in having a fundamental understanding of science and history, with applications as a secondary consideration. This leads one to believe that, since the principles of these courses are stressed, the study of these fields has intrinsic value and can offer students a set of skills which is unique to that field.

However, the description of the philosophy behind the reason and faith requirement stands out in this area. In the general education report, curiously enough, there is no mention of the fundamental principles of religious thought, even though the general education report stresses that students are affected by religion and should think critically about it. As the report states, “These courses are not prescriptive: their aim is to help students understand the interplay between religious and secular institutions, practices, and ideas.” This apparent exclusion of the basic principles of religion from the reason and faith requirement makes it seem that the general education report is holding religion to a different standard than the other fields. Instead of teaching students religious principles, reason and faith courses will “help students understand the interplay between religious and secular institutions, practices, and ideas.”

The committee’s implication is clear—religion may be useful as a lens through which we can better see our society, but it has less intrinsic value as a field of study than, say, science, history, or literature. Otherwise, why wouldn’t the general education committee require Harvard students to actually learn about religion as they do other fields? The general education report has relegated religion to the current events forum to be examined solely in the areas where it has overlap with society. In no way will students be able to acquire a deeper understanding of religion, knowledge that would help students develop a wide set of skills not present in any other field of study. In Harvard’s first attempt to mandate religion since wood stoves heated Mass. Hall, religion is being labeled as a secondary institution, only worthy of consideration when it stands at odds to societal development. This view of “current events religion” pigeonholes the study and will limit how it should be appropriately taught as a general education requirement. Furthermore, it is only through a general understanding of a field that one can fully grasp how it applies to society and current events. Any course which fails to provide a general knowledge of the field before stressing application runs the risk of leading students astray.

Perhaps the required study of religion has no place at a secular university. But religion courses aren’t designed to convince or indoctrinate. Their purpose is to explore an academic discipline that receives little or no treatment at Harvard. Studying religion involves coping with unanswerable questions, confronting humanity’s limitations, and thinking beyond oneself. No literature or science course can teach these skills. And regardless of whether students are atheist or devout, thinking about religion in an academic environment expands their view of the world and opens their minds to a new and different way of thinking. The basic principle that underlies other areas of the general education report should apply to reason and faith: A fundamental understanding of religious thought precedes a successful examination of religion’s applications to society.

The study of religion has value in and of itself. Harvard should not deny that and must teach religion for religion’s sake.

Adam A. Solomon ’09, a Crimson editorial comper, is an economics concentrator in Lowell House. Christopher J. Sullivan ’09, a Crimson editorial comper, is a biochemical sciences concentrator in Lowell House.