Relativism in Colleges

[BlindSheep]

Ok, a little background: I’ve returned to school at age 26 to finish my degree; in the years since I last attended, I converted to Catholicism, having formarly been a liberal agnostic.
Does anyone else out there feel like one of the main objectives of universities is to promote cognitive and moral relativism? I’m taking psychology, literature, computer science and interpersonal communication this semester, and only the computer science class has avoided promoting relativism. The psych and lit classes seem to be designed to promote one idea; that believing absolutely in anything (except relativism) is immature, stupid, generally the root of all the world’s problems. The whole agenda seems to be to eradicate any belief system the students may already have. The language in the textbooks themselves is basically “nyah nyah: if you believe in anything, you’re dumb and immature”.I worry that my failure to “understand” (accept) this perspective will hurt my grades. Anyone else feel this way? How do you deal with it?

 

[Ghosty]

Does anyone else out there feel like one of the main objectives of universities is to promote cognitive and moral relativism?

Short answer: Yes, 100% It annoyed the heck out of me even when I was a die-hard atheist in college, maybe even moreso then. Now at least I realize that there’s more to the world than universities and relativistic morality

 

[BlindSheep]

A few examples from my textbooks/other books my profs recommended:
The Hero Within:

To move beyond the Orphan state of the journey, *first stage; described as needy, manipulative and childish] *one first must fully be in it, and that means confronting one’s own pain, despair, and cynicism. It also means mourning the loss of Eden, letting oneself know that there is no safety, that God (at least the childish notion of a "Daddy God") is dead…Much of modern philosophy and literature helps us to overcome a belief that a deity will rescue us from ourselves and to let go of our childlike innocence. The legacy of the belief that suffering is somehow our just punishment for being sinful or bad has been so debilitating that much of our art and philosophy have focused on dispelling this idea…It is only the belief that there should be a Daddy God caring for us and protecting us that makes a contemporary confrontation with the notion that “God is dead” so painful. Who said life was supposed to be Edenic, anyway? Where did we get the notion that someone was supposed to take care of us? When we give up the idea that a diety protects us, we can accept some degree of suffering and sacrifice as essential to life without defining suffering as what life is.

 

[BlindSheep]

Myths: Gods:

The commonly accepted religious assumptions by the majority of those living within the system. Again, this is not to belittle any religious traditions…rather to acknowledge them for what they are: time-bound, space-bound attempts to bring meaning to their lives, attempts to answer the most basic questions of personal identity that seem to “work”. Once we become self-consciously aware of h boundaries of our conventionally held cultural (and religious) outlook, we can begin to appreciate the notion of an ever-expanding self. Conscious that our vision of meaning, coherence, and value is partial, provisional, and contradicted by the visions and claims of others, we can be open to new possiblilites for the self. With growing intelligence and progressive freedom, we construct other than purely reactive ways of reacting responding and interacting with others…Becoming aware of how thickly we are encrusted in our own myths…and integrating insights from myths of other religious traditions helps us recognize and appropriate the divinity that we have, or are. Both of these processes are necessary for living the full human life.

(emphasis mine)
IOW, non-relativists are purely reactive and not living the full human life.

 

[puzzleannie]

switch to engineering, math or hard science, and liberally educate yourself by reading the Great Books. you will have better job credentials, ease our brain drain, and get a better education than you would from people who do acknowledge an absolute truth–springing from their own psyche–but refuse to admit it. The absolutely worse kind of teacher is one who does not believe in what they teach.

 

[BlindSheep]

Nah, I’d rather stay and fight! Someone needs to represent our side.
Besides, the social sciences interest me.
Another quote
The Developing Person by Kathleen Stassen Berger:

…first year [college] students believe that clear and perfect truths exist…this initial phase is followed by a wholesale questioning of personal and social values, including doubts about the idea of truth itself…finally students become commited to certain values, even as they realize they need to remain open-minded…thinking progresses through nine levels of complexity over the four years of college, moving from a simplistic either/or dualism (right or wrong, success or failure) to a relativism that recognizes a multiplicity of perspectives.

 

[steveandersen]

BlindSheep:

… Anyone else feel this way?..

No.
I would be offended if a school tried to tell me what to believe. The very purpose of a college is to be a place of inquiry and questioning rather than some temple for receiving knowledge. The point is not (or should not be) “believe whatever you want” but “defend what you believe”.

And I went to school 25 years ago when there were still some bone fide Hippies wondering around and the neo-cons and the Regan youth were the new guys in town.

If you feel that your work is being belittled for reasons other than lack of rigor then you may want to consult the Dean. If it is just the other students giving you a hard time then ignore them. They’re 8 years younger than you and don’t pay your rent.

 

[BlindSheep]

steveandersen:

No.
I would be offended if a school tried to tell me what to believe. The very purpose of a college is to be a place of inquiry and questioning rather than some temple for receiving knowledge. The point is not (or should not be) “believe whatever you want” but “defend what you believe”.
.

Ah, but they are telling us what to believe! They are pushing the view that Christianity (sometimes all religion) is immature, harmful to society, dishonest, a “security blanket” etc… - and not by putting forth this assertion openly and backing it up with facts, but by embedding it in other subjects and treating it as a given. Actually, I’ve had straight A’s so far, so maybe my fear is paranoid. However I suspect this may be because, up until now, I have carefully avoided addressing these issues, and I feel like the profs are trying to “pin me down”.
I don’t expect the college to align itself with a religious perspective; an anti-religious perspective, however, is just as biased and offensive.

 

[steveandersen]

Originally Posted by The Developing Person by Kathleen Stassen Berger
…first year [college] students believe that clear and perfect truths exist…this initial phase is followed by a wholesale questioning of personal and social values, including doubts about the idea of truth itself…finally students become commited to certain values, even as they realize they need to remain open-minded…thinking progresses through nine levels of complexity over the four years of college, moving from a simplistic either/or dualism (right or wrong, success or failure) to a relativism that recognizes a multiplicity of perspectives.

I’m not quite sure what your problem is with that quote especially if you are a student of the social sciences

while certainly there are moral absolutes, extending dualistic thinking to all aspects of life is something that teenagers do and, with wisdom, the rest of us grow out of.
Relativism in thought does not necessarily mean moral relativism (unless of course you have dualistic thinking)

Many of the things we do every day do not touch on moral issues so the notion of right or wrong do not come into play.
I’m an engineer, I design things for a living. While clearly there are absolutes in that if the bridge falls it is a failure; there are many ways to make a bridge that won’t fall. What color do you make the bridge; what materials do you use; what sort of capital costs, life span, and maintenance costs do you want, etc. All these things are important considerations but there is no right or wrong good or bad to it. Some things are better than others in different circumstances…that is life That is why you become educated so that you can make your choices and defend them.

 

[Alterum]

puzzleannie:

switch to engineering, math or hard science, and liberally educate yourself by reading the Great Books. you will have better job credentials, ease our brain drain, and get a better education than you would from people who do acknowledge an absolute truth–springing from their own psyche–but refuse to admit it. The absolutely worse kind of teacher is one who does not believe in what they teach.

This is one of the main reasons I’m in engineering. Honestly. Unfortunately, I had to take a bio class this semester where the teachers seized several opportunities to insult Christians, but what can one do?

 

[BlindSheep]

steveandersen:

I’m not quite sure what your problem is with that quote especially if you are a student of the social sciences

while certainly there are moral absolutes, extending dualistic thinking to all aspects of life is something that teenagers do and, with wisdom, the rest of us grow out of.
Relativism in thought does not necessarily mean moral relativism (unless of course you have dualistic thinking)

Many of the things we do every day do not touch on moral issues so the notion of right or wrong do not come into play.
I’m an engineer, I design things for a living. While clearly there are absolutes in that if the bridge falls it is a failure; there are many ways to make a bridge that won’t fall. What color do you make the bridge; what materials do you use; what sort of capital costs, life span, and maintenance costs do you want, etc. All these things are important considerations but there is no right or wrong good or bad to it. Some things are better than others in different circumstances…that is life That is why you become educated so that you can make your choices and defend them.

I see what you’re driving at, Steve, but the quote’s use of the word “values” suggests, I think, that moral relativism is being described, or at least included, in the definition of mature thought. Furthermore, an “absolute relativism” in thought would consider the porspective that a bridge should fall, wouldn’t it?

 

[BlindSheep]

Alterum:

This is one of the main reasons I’m in engineering. Honestly. Unfortunately, I had to take a bio class this semester where the teachers seized several opportunities to insult Christians, but what can one do?

If Christians (net necessarily you) allow atheists to drive us out of the social sciences, we allow them to dominate these fields. I’m a Psych student. Psychology today, IMHO, often pushes liberal causes instead of trying to .help improve people’s mental health. That, to me, is another reason to work in the field. If, in some small way, I can help point out some of the errors, or develop new and better approaches that actually halp people instead of simply promoting liberal causes, I would consider it a good use of my lifetime.
So anyway, I appreciate the way Steve is pointing out where I may have misinterpreted the quotes. I want to call a spade a spade, but only if it actually is. I also want to percieve whatever value is in these concepts without swallowing the questionable values that seem to be mixed in with them.
If anyone can recommend any good books that might help me sort the wheat from the chaff (maybe older books on psychology, literature etc. minus the liberal perspective?) please do. I wouldn’t mind “supplementing” my education with a little extra reading…

 

[stanley123]

BlindSheep:

Another quote
“thinking progresses through nine levels of complexity over the four years of college, moving from a simplistic either/or dualism (right or wrong, success or failure) to a relativism that recognizes a multiplicity of perspectives.”

Why nine levels of complexity and not seventeen? Actually relativistic thinking has made inroads in my personal opinion in the RCC in the post Vatican II annulment process. People are married for ten or fifteen years have a few children and then their thinking progresses to a new level of complexity according to which they think it is OK to have a new partner and then get themselves an annulment. Soft psychological reasons are now accepted as grounds for annulments whereas they were not accepted in 1930, when there was only 9 annulments per year in the USA. In 1991, there were more than 60,000 annulments granted in the USA.

 

[steveandersen]

BlindSheep:

I see what you’re driving at, Steve, but the quote’s use of the word “values” suggests, I think, that moral relativism is being described, or at least included, in the definition of mature thought.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by values. To extend the bridge analogy if you tend to value aesthetics more then you might be inclined to favor a more attractive but potentially more costly design.

BlindSheep:

Furthermore, an “absolute relativism” in thought would consider the porspective that a bridge should fall, wouldn’t it?

I’m not sure what you mean by that
everything man made will fail eventually (or hopefully be replaced before it fails) but I don’t understand what you’re saying

PS after I posted I realized that my bridge analogy (like all analogies) has its limits

yes if a bridge is not maintained it will eventually fall but does that mean the design was wrong?

well maybe yes if the engineer knew that the town had a history of not maintaining things and he chose a design that was say cheaper but required a lot more maintenance

but no if the engineer came up with the life cycle cost and told the client what the maintenance cost would be and they agreed to it…

or if a bridge is built in a place that has never had a tornado and then one happens is that failure of design …of meteorology?

My point is that clear yes/no issues are fairly rare…that is why we have courts and ethicists and Commandments. If every decision was clear and obvious who would need those?

 

[AndyF]

What in layman’s terms is relativism? Are there many definitions depending on who it is meant to apply to?

You know, from a standpoint of zero knowledge on this, it sounds like thought control. I mean isn’t relativism a component of discursive thought? I can see where it could be an advantage where an opponent wins every reasoned debate using it, then the debator could say that it was just another “ism” and be valueless. For instance the opposition can no longer use it to define relationships in an argument. The debator could say the opponent’s view should be disqualified as it breached some conceptual white line.

What about he who implements this new idea? Is he bound by his own rules? Do we have proof of that commitment? Do we have proof of it’s broad application such has the sciences? Theology?

 I know I'm being presumptuous, but I'm a skeptic.

 Thanks for the heads up.

  Andy

 

[BlindSheep]

AndyF:

What in layman’s terms is relativism? Are there many definitions depending on who it is meant to apply to?

You know, from a standpoint of zero knowledge on this, it sounds like thought control. I mean isn’t relativism a component of discursive thought? I can see where it could be an advantage where an opponent wins every reasoned debate using it, then the debator could say that it was just another “ism” and be valueless. For instance the opposition can no longer use it to define relationships in an argument. The debator could say the opponent’s view should be disqualified as it breached some conceptual white line.

What about he who implements this new idea? Is he bound by his own rules? Do we have proof of that commitment? Do we have proof of it’s broad application such has the sciences? Theology?

I know I’m being presumptuous, but I’m a skeptic.

Thanks for the heads up.

Andy

I’m sorry, but I’m afraid I’m not bright enough to understand what you’re saying.
Who could say what was another 'ism"?
Can no longer use what to define relationships?
What white line?
What new idea?

 

[AndyF]

Blindsheep:

I’ll settle for an answer on the first question.

Does anyone else out there feel like one of the main objectives of universities is to promote cognitive and moral relativism?

You gave the impression that being one who is out there, you understand what relativism is.

Andy

 

[koda]

AndyF:

Blindsheep:

I’ll settle for an answer on the first question.

Does anyone else out there feel like one of the main objectives of universities is to promote cognitive and moral relativism?

You gave the impression that being one who is out there, you understand what relativism is.

Andy

I do not. I believe they present ideas to people (students) who are hopefully mature enough to think for themselves (in other words, not just parody what they were taught - but really decide what they believe). There are people who seem to have a problem with this concept - the questioning of parental wisdom or something - but IMO there comes a time in every persons life when they have to decide for themselves - a deep, intensly personal decision. And they need information to be able to do that. Stopping the flow of ideas (new or old) because you don’t agree with them just doesn’t seem right to me.

 

[sententia]

Is is not an absolute to state that there is no absolute? For some reason, this will throw many people off, or get into some interesting debates, if you are so inclinedin class. I’m one of those, um, ‘fun’ students who will debate anything I don’t agree with (from the C. perspective). With 2000 yrs of philosophy behind it, I’ve never been able to be ‘beat,’ only gotten to the point where the prof can see the position- and the legitimacy of it- just not agree with it. Which is fine by me, because most don’t understand why those of us who do believe, do believe.

Then again, that’s why I am a double hard-science major. Chemistry is chemistry no matter who teaches it.

 

[BlindSheep]

AndyF:

Blindsheep:

I’ll settle for an answer on the first question.

Does anyone else out there feel like one of the main objectives of universities is to promote cognitive and moral relativism?

You gave the impression that being one who is out there, you understand what relativism is.

Andy

I still do not understand what you’re saying. Are you saying I don’t know what relativism is? Are you claiming that the nature of relativism as an idea, that is, an idea about thought itself, means it is not an ideology which can be “promoted”? In a sense, you are right in that relativism is self-refuting, and therefore, those who use it to attempt to undermine the ideas of those they disagree with are subject to it themselves. However, the ideas that “reletivism is the highest/most mature form of thought” and “belief in absolutes is a sign of immaturity” are indeed “pushing” relativism, paradoxical as that may be; furthermore, these ideas are only good for tearing down belief systems. As a way of life, relativism does not work. It undermines every attempt at thought and decision making, makes it impossible to commit to anything. It is not simply objectivity, or openness to the possiblity one might be mistaken about the truth; it is the belief that there** is no truth** (self refuting though it may be) and is the basis of the liberal worldview,