The Problem of God is one of Georgetown’s most important courses: Every semester, a dozen or so sections of 20 to 40 undergraduates apiece explore the human spiritual experience. The class, one of two options to fulfill the first undergraduate theology requirement, offers students the opportunity to build meaningful relationships with their professors, read timeless authors like Aquinas and Freud, and plumb the more profound questions of life. This is all fine and good, but The Problem of God could and should do better.
Perhaps more than any other multiple-section course at Georgetown, The Problem of God varies widely from professor to professor. For some students, it’s among the most valuable academic experiences to be had here; for others, it’s just another requirement to satisfy. While some sections force students to confront meaningful questions, others delve no deeper than a standard-fare theology survey course.
The Problem of God could use some standardization. Whether one gets something out of the class shouldn’t depend on which professor one happens to have.
Each section of The Problem of God should investigate the same core set of questions. Examples might include: What is evil? Does God exist? What is the good life? Why do we have religion? What is the relationship between religion and science? A focus on these problems should be the stated purpose of every section.
As it is now, students are left to tackle these sorts of questions on their own. If all sections had aligned goals, freshmen and sophomores in particular would know that their roommates and neighbors are likely approaching the same questions – communication with other students outside the classroom would be a valuable resource. Individual reflection is important; to be truly successful, however, the Department of Theology must develop extracurricular intellectual conversation. All professors should list the same general questions on their sections’ syllabi and encourage their students to discuss these questions with students from different sections.
This solution would foster intellectual growth and ensure that every student in The Problem of God has a satisfying experience. Many students already discuss and argue these questions on their own – plainly discussing them with others can expose students to more viewpoints and enhance their own worldviews. Few questions are more perplexing and have more ramifications than “Does God exist?” The Problem of God should seek to facilitate discussion on this and other topics for all students, not just those in certain sections.
Other institutions have implemented standardized courses of study for undergraduates in limited doses. Since 1919, versions of Columbia University’s core curriculum have introduced all students to uniform perspectives through classes like Contemporary Civilization. Providence College has done something similar since the early 1970s with its grueling Development of Western Civilization course.
Critics will argue that our proposal for The Problem of God would restrain professors’ creativity and that professors teach most effectively when they are free to teach as they please.
This misses two points. First, the most effective professors already ask their students similar questions in The Problem of God. It would take little effort to make these questions part of every section’s syllabus. Second, this solution does not tell professors how to teach. On the contrary, it prompts professors and encourages them to put forth these questions in their own unique ways. These different perspectives would enrich the overall experience.
The Problem of God has untapped potential. To promote Georgetown’s intellectual life inside and outside the classroom, the Department of Theology must streamline its syllabi to include universal questions that all sections should seek to answer.
To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact opinionthehoya.com. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.
“
