Yesterday in my “Faith, Doubt and Reason” class we had a wonderful discussion, although the relevance to the subject of the class may not have been readily apparent at first to the students (who seemed sure I would intervene any moment to end the discussion). Students engaged in a lively debate about language, spelling, and terminology, including the U.S. vs. Canadian/British spelling of theater/theatre, and whether anyone calls grilled cheese sandwiches “cheese toasties” and if so who.
One reason I didn’t try to get the conversation back onto something more academic was that the discussion was providing students a chance to get to know one another – they discovered that students they sat in class with were from the same town as them, or from a whole other country (even if one within driving distance).
But the main thing that made the discussion so delightful was that the topic of subjectivity had already been raised, and this conversation actually provided a fascinating illustration and exploration of that subject. Students over the years have shown a wide range of views on religion and subjectivity. Some have considered it rude to talk about the subject in a way that seeks to change another person’s mind. Some have been dogmatic but far more have expressed that pop-postmodern apathy that maintains that everyone is entitled to their opinion, so that different, conflicting views may be “right for you but not for me.”
And so it was striking to discover that when it comes to the subject of grilled cheese sandwiches, there was no such apathy, but instead a willingness to dive into the discussion and take a stand for the “truth” of their belief system, their worldview.
When it came to the matter of how to settle such issues, things became even more interesting. That people who speak other languages have totally different words was set aside, focusing only on how one says things in English – much as those who share a religious tradition or label such as “Christianity” might debate some aspect of the Trinity, ignoring for the time being the fact that there were other traditions that would dispute the assumptions of such a discussion and not just the details. The question of which language or spelling was earlier was proposed as a way of settling disputes. And of course, the dictionary – the canon of scripture – was appealed to. And that provided a wonderful opportunity to talk about how words get into the dictionary, what makes grammar correct or incorrect, and the most important point, which is that matters such as these are not “merely subjective” or “purely objective” but somewhere in between and a combination of both simultaneously.
So I feel like this conversation has provided some insight into today’s students. But I’m still puzzling over precisely what. But one thing seems clear: when today’s students refrain from engaging one another directly about matters of religious disagreement, it isn’t because of a general apathy. They care deeply about some things, including ones as nontrivial as whether to say “pop” or “soda” or just call everything “Coke.”
And so if you find students reluctant to debate and discuss religious ideas, maybe you should consider asking them about cheese toasties. Once the dust settles, you can ask them why they engage a subject like that differently than they do matters of philosophy, religion and ethics.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In