Critical Thinking, Secularism and Mount Royal University:
Is 100 Years of Progress Under Threat?
Frances Widdowson
Department of Policy Studies
Mount Royal University
Submission to the Mount Royal Centennial Reader
August 19, 2010
When I happily accepted a job as a faculty member at Mount Royal University (née, College) in
August 2008, I was pleased that I would be working at a secular institution. Although Mount
Royal, when it was a college, was formed as a private Methodist institution 100 years ago, 19591976 was the last period in which a religious figure administered Mount Royal’s affairs. In
1966, the Mount Royal College Act was passed, which made Mount Royal a public institution,
distancing it from its religious origins.
However, a number of recent occurrences threaten Mount Royal’s maturation to secularity. It is
important to alert faculty members, the broader university community and the general public to
these challenges, and explain why it is important to confront them. Such matters pertain not only
to those who study and teach at Mount Royal; they are of importance to all universities today.
Examining Mount Royal University’s secularity (or lack of), in fact, provides a significant
moment for reflection in its centennial celebrations, and can encourage other educational
institutions to contemplate their own circumstances and historical development. Before these
affronts to secularism can be analyzed, however, it is first necessary to outline what is meant by
secularism, and why it is particularly important that educational institutions maintain a neutral
stance towards belief in the supernatural.
What is secularism?
In discussions about the influence of religion in modern society, it is often noted that industrial
democracies are “secular societies”. Although there are some different conceptions of the word,
the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines secularism as follows: “concerned with the affairs of this
world, not sacred or monastic or ecclesiastical” and/or “skeptical of religious truth or opposed to
religious education”.
There are essentially two important aspects of this definition. The first is a reference to the
exclusion of religion/faith from civil or public affairs; secondly, there is skepticism or
indifference towards religion/faith, and opposition to religious “education” – a form of
indoctrination. In pointing out these factors, it is important to underline that the word “faith” has
been added to references regarding “religion”. This is because the current promotion of religion
involves the device of claiming that various beliefs in the supernatural are not “religious” in the
sense that they do not believe in a “personal God”. However, the important aspect of religious
beliefs with respect to universities is that they embrace faith – a circumstance that exists in New
Age spirituality, Buddhism, and many other belief systems, as well as mainstream religions such
as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Faith is the assumption of reality in the absence of evidence
– a direct contradiction with scientific reasoning and the pursuit of truth. It is the promotion of
2
faith itself that should be a concern to educators today, which is why educational institutions
should become or remain secular.
Secularism and critical thinking
For universities today, secularism is particularly important because of the mandate of
postsecondary institutions to encourage critical thinking within their student body. With respect
to Mount Royal University, this is evident in the many Instructional Support Program (ISP)
sessions that are held for new faculty. One of the messages coming through loud and clear is
that we, as professors, are supposed to be helping students to become critical thinkers in our
classes. And since critical thinking comes into conflict with the promotion of faith, one infers
that it is important for Mount Royal University to be a declared secular university.
In order to understand the problem that faith poses for critical thinking, it is important to
distinguish it from knowledge. 1 Although knowledge is a difficult concept to pin down, in
everyday language, as in philosophical discourse, a distinction is generally made between
knowledge and mere belief; only what is true can be known, thus the word “knowledge” has a
positive connotation while “belief” is neutral. Though philosophers continue to debate the
meaning of “knowledge”, the general consensus is that “knowledge” is a synonym for “justified
true belief”. Thus, if we believe that earth is flat, the world was created in seven days, or in the
Tooth Fairy, these beliefs cannot constitute knowledge, not only because they are obviously
false, but for the crucial reason that they are without evidence. Similarly, if on the night of
September 10, 2001 a person dreamt that the World Trade Center towers would collapse the next
day, and believed it to be a prophecy, that belief would still not constitute knowledge, even
though it turned out to be true. The dream, like a guess, would be coincidental; there was no
good reason to believe it was true - i.e. it was not a justified true belief relative to the evidence
available at the time.
This definition indicates the importance of reason, logic and evidence for developing knowledge.
It shows the conflict that exists with faith, where one believes something in spite of it not being
substantiated (hence the possibility of “losing one’s faith”). Faith is actually an obstacle to the
acquisition of knowledge, because it displaces the need to pursue questions to their conclusion.
Notions of the supernatural are used to explain what is unknown; the notion that anything is
unexplainable (i.e. caused by spiritual forces, “God”, etc.) justifies ending the quest for real, as
opposed to accepting imaginary, explanations.
In recognizing the conflict that exists between accepting faith and promoting knowledge, a
misconception should be addressed – the common assertion that questioning unjustified or
implausible beliefs is “disrespectful”. It is not understood that intellectual criticism actually
“respects” honest interaction and therefore respects human dignity. To not question ideas that
confront reason is to patronize their holders, depriving them of insights that may have been
overlooked. All participants benefit from the free exchange of ideas, and to demand that one
should lie to others out of “respect” is itself disrespectful. Rational people readily change their
minds when it is warranted by evidence, and genuine education encourages this. In other words,
1
I was alerted to this distinction by Alan Sokal, and owe him a great debt for helping me to more fully understand
this difference.
3
there needs to be a distinction between the right to believe, and the validity of what is believed –
a distinction usually lost in discussions about religion/faith.
One of the most disturbing trends in attempting to prevent the questioning of religion/faith can
be seen in the development of policies and protocols that attempt to prevent the “denigration”,
“disrespect” or “undermining” of a another person’s or group’s beliefs or traditions. These
policies maintain that they are not trying to constrain free expression, but that is exactly what
they are doing. Arguing that ideas should only be accepted if they are supported by evidence
inevitably “undermines” faith. To point out that that a religious text is socially negative because
it justifies wife-beating, homophobia and the killing of apostates obviously “denigrates” and
“disrespects” the belief system with which it is associated.
Although Mount Royal has not developed any such policies or protocols, the addition of the
word “diversity” to the Diversity and Human Rights Department is moving the university further
in this direction. “Diversity” as it is currently understood, does not generally refer to the airing
of different and conflicting viewpoints. Instead, it is quite the opposite, and it is the promotion
of cultural difference, including different faiths, which is the focus. For a university to promote
the retention of religion/faith on the grounds that diversity is a good “in itself” is to inhibit
individuals from critically examining their assumptions – a course of action they should be
encouraged to pursue.
Secularism and Mount Royal University
While Mount Royal University does not generally impose religion/faith as part of its ongoing
functions, the presence of university-sponsored activities promoting spirituality implies that the
university gives credibility to irrational beliefs. In this regard, there are two areas that are
challenging its secular character and the university’s mandate to encourage the development of
critical thinking on campus. The first concerns the existence of the Multi-Faith Chaplaincy,
while the second relates to a number of aboriginal programs and services.
Religious promotion and the Multi-Faith Chaplaincy
Mount Royal University currently funds a Multi-Faith Chaplaincy on campus. This funding
ensures that there is “a team of chaplains representing a variety of faith traditions helping us
explore these adventures and challenges as we travel along our life's path”. Permanent office
space also has been allocated for religion/faith. A “Meditation Centre” has been created for
members of the Mount Royal University community “to use for private reflection, prayer and
devotion”. It is also noted that “employees of all faiths are welcome to use this room”. 2
From the point of view of a secular university, this is very problematic because it clearly
endorses religion/faith (in fact, the chaplaincy is listed under “wellness services”, discouraging
the possibility of seeing the acceptance of faith as a social sickness). Once again, the mandate of
instilling critical thinking, in conjunction with respect for the right of individuals to believe what
2
http://www.mtroyal.ca/CampusServices/WellnessServices/Multi-FaithChaplaincy/.
4
they want, means that the university should be silent on the existence of the supernatural. This
does not mean that students should be prevented from praying and/or engaging in religious
practices as they see fit, just that the university should not endorse these activities.
Particularly disturbing to Mount Royal’s secularism is an ongoing program run by Chaplaincy
Services called “Spirituality in the Classroom: An Open Dialogue”. This initiative is
disconcerting because it is suggesting that matters of faith should be integrated into the
classroom itself. A brochure for the sessions asks if faculty have “ever had a sense that there is a
spiritual dimension to education” and promotes the idea that “the classroom space [can] be one
that welcomes the spirit”. Also present is the assertion that there currently is a “buzz around
spirituality in higher education”. The “dialogue”, therefore, is one that assumes that spirituality
exists and its incorporation will be beneficial in an academic environment. If there is a “buzz” in
contemporary academia, it is in the direction of reason and logic, not toward superstition and
irrationality. This is the buzz that has put reactionary religious advocates in a defense mode.
Although promotional materials about this program do not mention the supernatural, an
environment leading to its acceptance is cultivated and some of the sessions have clearly
supported this notion. One of the major sources recommended to increase one’s understanding
of the topic – Chickering, Dalton and Stamm’s Encouraging Authenticity and Spirituality in
Higher Education – constantly promotes the idea of prayer, the sacred, faith, and uses the term
spirituality in conjunction with religion. A session that I attended last year even discussed how
professors should try to ease the discomfort of creationist students when their faith was
challenged by the theory of evolution!
The increasing skepticism towards the role of religion in society is driving advocates to reckless
attempts to divert the forces of rational thought. “Spirituality in the Classroom” is, in fact, a
disingenuous attempt to bring matters of faith into the university. One can imagine the outcry
that would ensue if the program were called “Religion in the Classroom”, and so the euphemism
“spirituality” is used in its place. Then, to add to this pretext, words like “leadership and trust”,
“courage”, “maturity” and “integrity” are inserted as “topics to be explored”. But these topics
are already being investigated in secular venues such as academic workshops and faculty
orientation sessions. What do they have to do with belief in the supernatural?
This is not to say that professors should be prevented from getting together, among themselves,
to discuss these matters. Students and faculty should have the right to join whatever religious
clubs and associations that they want on campus. Talks can be given on the perceived
importance of religion/faith in society, and others should feel free to question these assertions.
But when the Academic Development Centre sends out invitations to faculty to sign up for
workshops promoting “spirituality in the classroom” and the university hires chaplains to
promote religion/faith, it is endorsing activities that impede critical thinking. The university
does not promote ideas about alien abductions or the Sasquatch, so why should it legitimize
religion/faith?
Comparing religion/faith/spirituality to beliefs that are considered to be ridiculous by mainstream
society may be regarded by some as offensive. But the comparison is justified because there is
no evidence to support any of these ideas. In fact, believing in the Sasquatch and alien
abductions is more rational than belief in the supernatural. The size of the universe makes it
possible that other forms of life exist, and the alleged Sasquatch (shown in photos) appears to be
5
a large, hairy mammal. Supernatural forces, on the other hand, are not subject to the laws of the
universe, and therefore defy everything that is currently known. It is only because many people
believe in the supernatural, as opposed to the very few who assert the existence of alien
abductions or the Sasquatch that leads people to take religion/faith seriously. But this is just a
confusion of popularity with validity.
Condescension in aboriginal programs and services
Although the legitimation of the belief in the supernatural is disturbing in an institution that has a
mandate to develop critical thinking skills, the promotion of spirituality is not oriented to a
particular group. This is not the case with the other threat to secularism occurring at Mount
Royal University, and postsecondary institutions more generally – the inclusion of religion/faith
in various aboriginal programs and services. This trend seems to be based on the racial
stereotype that aboriginal people are naturally “spiritual” and have an inherent tendency to
believe in the supernatural. While this trend is usually justified on the basis that it “respects”
aboriginal traditions and recognizes the harm that has been caused by colonialism, such
initiatives actually disrespect the individual intellects of aboriginal students. Aboriginal people
should decide for themselves, like all other members of the university community, what they
want to believe. Such a stereotype also has the added disadvantage of entrenching the low
educational achievement of many native students, since it segregates them from the mainstream
by preventing them from entering into discussions that will contribute to their critical thinking
skills.
Two aspects of the promotion of aboriginal spirituality at Mount Royal University are instances
of prayers/spiritual ceremonies and the incorporation of what has been referred to as “indigenous
knowledges”. With respect to the inclusion of prayers/spiritual ceremonies in academic contexts,
there have been two incidents that I have been involved with personally since 2008. The first
was a decision made by one co-chair of the Faculty of Arts’ Native Studies Steering Committee
to hold a prayer at the beginning of a meeting in 2009. Secondly, organizers of the conference,
Under Western Skies: Climate, Culture and Change in Western North America, to be held at
Mount Royal University in October 2010, announced in their preliminary program that a “Local
Elders’ Prayer and Blessing” would be held during the commencement of the event. This
practice was justified under the guise that it showed “respect for the people whose traditional
land we built on”.
But why is it assumed that an aboriginal person, because of their ancestry, will automatically
want to pray? We do not assume that a European will be a Christian, an Arab a Muslim, or an
Indian a Hindu. There is even such a thing as a “secular Jew”. No one would suggest a Catholic
prayer at a session on Irish literature. These assumptions about “natural” aboriginal spiritually, in
fact, are causing resentment within certain segments of the native population. Aboriginal
atheists, although currently few in number, have commented to me that they are growing tired of
having prayers and ceremonies in which they do not believe imposed upon them. Faculty and
students at Mount Royal University are not asked to pray or participate in spiritual ceremonies in
any other context, but condescension towards a historically disadvantaged group means that this
religious imposition continues largely unopposed.
Even worse than the incessant prayers and ceremonies, organized on behalf of aboriginal people
in academic environments across the country, is the notion that there is something called
6
“indigenous knowledges”. It is the inclusion of belief in the supernatural that makes them
different from “scientific knowledge” or “western knowledge”. It has been argued that these
indigenous “ways of knowing” should form an integral part of Canadian Native Studies
programs, including a minor that is being proposed for Mount Royal University.
Asserting that the spiritual beliefs of some aboriginal people are “knowledge”, however, is an
educational disservice to the native population and is destructive to academic integrity more
generally. As has been explained above, spiritual beliefs are not knowledge, regardless of the
political pressures that find it expedient to declare them as such. It is not fair to aboriginal
students to pretend, for example, that “the Creator” placed them on Turtle Island “from the
beginning of time”, when the educated public accepts that all humanity evolved out of Africa.
Even worse, the distortions that are being tolerated so as to condescendingly “respect” aboriginal
traditions are impacting scientific research more generally. Genetic studies and archaeological
investigations are being impeded because of fears about offending the spiritual beliefs of some
aboriginal people.
A secular future for Mount Royal University?
Although Mount Royal University has been able to largely sever its religious roots, moving
towards secularism over its 100 year history, this progress is now under threat. The promotion of
religion/faith through the funding of Chaplaincy Services, as well as the incorporation of
spirituality into aboriginal programs and services, should be a concern for all people who value
the promotion of critical thinking in educational institutions.
It should be made clear again, however, that ensuring Mount Royal’s secularity has nothing to do
with what religion/faith individuals choose to pursue on their own, either inside or outside the
university. Students, especially, should feel free to participate in Islamic Awareness Week and
the campus Crusade for Christ, just as atheists, agnostics and humanists should feel free to
organize and disseminate their viewpoints (it would be particularly beneficial for actual dialogue
if these groups put forward their ideas simultaneously). Individuals obviously will also pursue
beliefs in their private lives – in churches, mosques and temples. But as was mentioned
previously, respecting the right to hold beliefs is not the same as encouraging these beliefs, as is
occurring today at Mount Royal University.
Because there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural, the university should not itself
endorse or legitimize these beliefs; they are contrary to scientific understanding. It should
instead remain silent on the question of the supernatural. By funding the promotion of
religion/faith, the university actively contradicts the viewpoints of rational thinkers, atheists, and
secular humanists. It denies the legitimacy of their viewpoints and provides no support for the
investigation and criticism of religion/faith. The university is supposed to be encouraging the
rigorous evaluation of evidence, and promoting spiritual beliefs is contrary to this process. If we
continue to head down this road, we will no longer be a secular institution; this will do serious
harm to this university and send us backward to the time, 100 years ago, when indoctrination
masqueraded as education.