Christian Republican Professor

[Ed Suspicious]

So I just finished my second 3 hour interim class with a new professor. It is my final required advanced composition class. It is comp for the humanities. I chose it because I thought it would be fun not realizing until a few days before class who would be teaching and what books I would need.

The professor is a staunch republican, moral absolutist Christian who holds a phd and two masters degrees one with an English focus and another with a philosophy focus. He is extremely quick witted and well versed in argument.

We are reading The Screwtape Letters and The Great Divorce; both by C.S. Lewis. The professor has an extremely energetic style. He walks through these chains of logic that nearly convince me sometimes as a 40 year old who has seem a few things in this world. I could see how, and based on his Ratemyprofessor ratings it is born out, he is loved and admired by his students. Most people report that he was the best professor they have ever had the pleasure of taking.

My problem is, when he was talking about the virtue of moral absolutism and the evidence of its virtue according to C.S. Lewis' line of thought, I spoke up and asked him, or more to the point, how would C.S. Lewis square the idea of Just war with the absolute statement provided in the ten commandments that Thou shall not kill. I also pointed out that many wars are fought for acquisition of resources and went against the equally absolute commandment of thou shalt not steal. He absolutely trounced me and every counterpoint I tried to interject. I made the mistake of admitting to being an liberal atheist (not that he couldn't figure it out). The rest of the class every point I tried to make, even when it was a simple interpretation of parable or anything was wrong. And dismissed in a way that led me to believe my personal philosophy might have had something to do with the curt responses I was receiving.

I think I might just zip my lips and coast through the rest of the class so as I don't draw attention to myself and remind him of my unsavory viewpoints while he is issuing grades.

How would you recommend dealing with it? Have you ever encountered a staunch republican professor in your college life? How did you handle it?

P.S. Fuck C.S. Lewis

[Fred Sanders]

1. How does he square Charles Darwin with Fred Flintstone?

[Ed Suspicious]

2. Good question. I'll probably never find out.

[xfundy]

3. Report his disfavoritism and preaching.

[Jim__]

4. You admitted you are a liberal atheist?

I take it that you admitted it because he asked? Your political and/or religious beliefs really have nothing to do with the argument you were making - although your interpretation of the commandment would matter. The fact that he needed to know your beliefs that were not pertinent to your argument indicates to me that he is not someone you can have a serious discussion with. I'd probably follow your inclination to not engage with him. I would also file a complaint with the administration - arguing against your beliefs rather than your points makes him a lousy instructor.

[Ed Suspicious]

6. I offered it up during a few moments of private discussion when I was trying to explain how the

C.S. Lewis writing seemed to be putting me on the defensive. I offered it up in light of the fact that he many many times over the last two days he reminded us that he doesn't care what we think, only that we think. He isn't there to change minds, but to challenge our ideas. I thought I was participating in honest academic exchange. Maybe we are and I took it the wrong way, but it just didn't feel as cordial and in the interest of learning as I am used to. But maybe this is the first time I've been truly challenged on my beliefs in college. I don't know. I'm not terribly confident in the setting as he is so incredibly quick and seemingly logical while rebutting. Maybe I just need to step up my game and make better argument, but I am clearly outmatched. Junior year of undergrad vs seasoned phd.

[Jim__]

7. Almost any contest between an undergraduate and a professor, goes to the professor.

But, you say he absolutely trounced your points. A good teacher draws the student out; so, I guess it depends on what you mean by trounced.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. The 10 Commandments speak to murder, not killing.

Whether personal self-defense or national conflict the Bible does speak to human conflict.

I also pointed out that many wars are fought for acquisition of resources.

Absolutely true. However, the important thing is to not be the party waging war for resources or converts, etc. but to defend those who are subject to such depredations.

I made the mistake of admitting to being an liberal atheist

That's not a mistake, that's who you are -- and that is not a mistake. It's a place to begin a conversation. I think -- though I may share his views -- your professor is taking an unfair advantage of his station. People should not belittle each other's deepest held beliefs. One of the greatest blessings of life is that we get to share so much. How can we share if we demand everyone be exactly as we are?

[Ed Suspicious]

10. This is very similar to what he said during that particular exchange.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. I have no doubt, only I wouldn't be a professor grading you only

an acquaintance sharing a conversation.

[haele]

8. Don't bring up personal opinions anymore when discussing a philosophical point.

You might be able to flavor your personal compositions with your viewpoints, but not your arguments.
With a PhD in philosophy those years teaching, he's heard all the arguments pro and con of anything you wish to discuss; and no matter how good a professor as he seems to be, he's not going to give on anything you might say, there will always be some little nit-pick that he can use to turn your argument black or white. When in a logical discussion with someone with an absolutist or Manchean world view, you have to remember they see things in black and white; they can't see "colors", no matter how many "but what about this situation" you bring up.
Personally, I think Moral Absolutism is intellectually lazy as it requires a static environment to work in, but hey, that's his world. And the world of many writers and philosophers.

My advice - Listen carefully to what he is saying and deal strictly with the logic progression of his points. This will show you what pattern of logic he is following, and where there are places that you can insert a question that may make him stop and think for a moment. Absolutists are somewhat easy to anticipate, but they are hard to steer, so it's you that will need to be nimble.

Make your major, personal opinion arguments on paper, not in class. Try to anticipate where he's going to say "black" to your "green" and "white" to your "yellow" when you craft your point.

Other than that, enjoy your class in composition. Remember, it's not creative writing, it's being concious of how you're writing, making your point clearly, and finding your true voice...

Haele

[Ed Suspicious]

9. Thank you for the advice. I'll follow it.

[brooklynite]

11. I took a class with a well know conservative Republican at Penn.....

I ignored his politics because it had nothing to do with the class. In your case, I'd drop it for the same reason.

[Ed Suspicious]

18. Since he's well known, do you mind if I ask who it was?

[brooklynite]

19. Let me clarify...well known when I went to school in the 70s

Alan Kors, a staunch conservative anti-communist

http://www.history.upenn.edu/faculty/kors.shtml

[Vattel]

12. War these days always involves military operations that kill innocent bystanders.

Typically that is murder and a good moral absolutist should be against it. But he probably appealed to the principle of double effect to justify killing innocent bystanders as a foreseen side effect of pursuing a good end. The problem there is that the principle of double effect is clearly a bullshit principle but showing that it is bullshit would not be easy.

[Throd]

13. These days? Hasn't it always been that way?

[Vattel]

21. not entirely

When the Mongols invaded Europe, for example, they didn't bring a bunch of innocent bystanders onto the battlefield with them. Thus, those defending the innocent against them could be confident that they would not harm innocent bystanders.

[Ed Suspicious]

15. From the daily journal I submitted to him this morning concerning "Just War" and the

evil inherent in extreme patriotism or extreme pacifism;

"The result of war is too often the killing of people who are conscripted to the cause of defending a pious leader’s slipping grasp on absolute power. There is no justice in the death of innocents forced to fight often against their will."

[reformist2]

16. The "just war" doctrine is good in theory, but precious few wars fit that category.

I have a feeling you'd score points against the professor if you moved out of the realm of the theoretical,
and into the real. If the theory never really applies, what good is it?

[Ed Suspicious]

17. He talks a lot about stopping Hitler. Hard to argue that that wasn't the right move.

At least I don't know how to argue against it. I guess I could have asked him if firebombing Dresden was Just.

[graegoyle]

20. Fighting Hitler; hard to criticize...

Get him to defend the attack on the entire population of Hiroshima. (I recall something about the bombers wanted to see what would happen.)