The Philosophy/Religion Passage (verbal reasoning) | Verbal Reasoning

Introduction

The Philosophy/Religion passage is in some ways the most straightforward of the CLT Verbal Reasoning passages. Unlike the Science passage, it tends to lack hyper-specific detail. Unlike the Literature passage, it can be read straightforwardly as nonfiction with little in the way of figurative or narrative language. Unlike the Historical/Founding Documents passage, it presents one passage from a single author rather than two authors in conversation.

At the same time, philosophical and theological passages may still present challenges to high school readers, particularly if the passage comes from an older source. These passages often involve significant development of their arguments, with multi-step developments of logic and sometimes with allusions to broader philosophical movements and ideas beyond the scope of the 500-to-600-word passage itself.

The Journey Method and the Philosophy/Religion Passage

Application of the Journey Method will equip the student with the necessary understanding of central ideas and the tools necessary to interpret supporting details and logical connections when asked to do so. Let’s see how the “slow-fast-slow” journey applies to a 19th-century passage about theology and the university.

Practice Passage

This passage is taken from The Idea of a University, Discourse 2, by John Henry Newman, published in 1875 and found at Newman Reader . This passage has been adapted and excerpted from the original; these modifications have not substantially changed the content or intent.

It is the fashion just now, as you very well know, to erect so-called Universities, without making any provision in them at all for Theological chairs … Such a procedure, though defended by writers of the generation just passed with much plausible argument and not a little wit, seems to me an intellectual absurdity; and my reason for saying so runs, with whatever abruptness, into the form of a syllogism:—A University, I should lay down, by its very name professes to teach universal knowledge: Theology is surely a branch of knowledge: how then is it possible for it to profess all branches of knowledge, and yet to exclude from the subjects of its teaching one which, to say the least, is as important and as large as any of them? I do not see that either premise of this argument is open to exception.

Although CLT passages are nearly always excerpted from a larger book, short story, or essay, they are selected in such a way that the first paragraph will introduce a topic that is then developed in the subsequent paragraphs. The first paragraph makes clear that Newman’s topic here is the importance of making provision for the study of theology at a university. The first sentence introduces the idea of a university without a theology department (“chair” refers to establishing faculty positions in a certain discipline). We might briefly wonder whether Newman is for or against such a practice, but if we pay attention to attitude clues, we soon find the answer: if he calls universities without theology “so-called universities,” we can infer that he dislikes the concept. Nor does he leave any room for uncertainty in the following sentence: he refers to this same idea as an “intellectual absurdity.” Without going far into the passage, then, we can already make a guess as to the main idea: a true university must include the study of theology.

Having clearly communicated his thesis (at least by implication, because we can conclude that if a university without a university is an absurdity, a university with a university must be what Newman wants), the author supports his idea in the latter part of the paragraph. He does so in the form of a syllogism, an ancient logical structure significant enough in its own right for us to pause and explain it here.

The concept of the syllogism goes back to the logical works of Aristotle, who used as one of his examples a classic formulation that still serves as an example of a syllogism to this day:

All men are mortal. (Major premise)
Socrates is a man. (Minor premise)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)

The major premise is a universal statement relating a subject-- “all men”-- to a predicate that describes the subject or puts it in a category (“mortal”, which must be true of all men). The minor premise identifies a particular example of the subject given in the major premise (the example here is Socrates, who belongs in the category of “man”.) The conclusion is drawn because if all members of a certain set have a certain characteristic, a particular member of this set must have the characteristic. If all men have the characteristic of being mortal, then Socrates, a member of the species of “men,” must possess mortality as a characteristic.

With this in mind, read Newman’s syllogism. Can you boil down his language into three statements? Give it a try and then check your answer with the spoiler below.

(spoiler)

A university professes to (should) teach universal (all branches of) knowledge.

Theology is a branch of knowledge.

Therefore, a university should teach theology.

The author’s attitude toward the argument that universities need not teach theology is

A. scornful contempt.
B. reasoned rejection.
C. reluctant acceptance.
D. wholehearted embrace.

(spoiler)

The answer is reasoned rejection. Here is the key sentence to answer this question: “Such a procedure, though defended by writers of the generation just passed with much plausible argument and not a little wit, seems to me an intellectual absurdity.” Those are strong words at the end, so one might be tempted to go with “scornful contempt" here (the two answers that suggest a positive attitude are clearly out). But Newman says these arguments have been made with “much plausible argument and not a little (meaning “much” or “a substantial amount of”) wit.” Newman is nodding in respect to the intelligence and cleverness of those who make the argument, even while he emphatically disagrees with it. In this paragraph and following he offers reasons for his disagreement, so it is appropriate to call his “rejection” a “reasoned” one.

As to the range of University teaching, certainly the very name of University is inconsistent with restrictions of any kind. Whatever was the original reason of the adoption of that term, which is unknown, I am only putting on it its popular, its recognized sense, when I say that a University should teach universal knowledge. That there is a real necessity for this universal teaching in the highest schools of intellect, I will show by-and-by; here it is sufficient to say that such universality is considered by writers on the subject to be the very characteristic of a University, as contrasted with other seats of learning …

The Journey Method instructs us to enter the second paragraph with a resolve to discover (usually via its topic sentence) how the author is going to support his/her main claim; with this idea clearly understood, we may feel free to begin reading more quickly and even skimming.

Newman’s clear writing makes the logical progression here apparent: this paragraph supports the main thesis by referring to the universality inherent in the name “university.” It’s worth pausing for a moment to make sure our understanding is clear, since the etymology of the word “university” may not naturally occur to us when we use the word. But if you detect “universe” inside of “university,” you can see how the word came about; as the author notes, the whole universe of knowledge should be taught at a university if the institution is to remain true to the origins of its founding idea.

The rest of the paragraph supports this claim by mentioning that a number of writers on the subject of the university have said the same thing as Newman here puts forward. There are no major structural markers like “but” or “however” here, so we should feel confident moving on quickly as long as we have grasped the paragraph’s central idea.

The argument of the second paragraph is based on

A. the case made by ancient authors.
B. a compendium of scientific evidence.
C. the author’s personal experience.
D. the meaning of an important word in question.

(spoiler)

The answer is the meaning of an important word in question. In the first sentence of this paragraph, the author refers to “the very name” of the university, suggesting that the word itself is going to be important in his argument. Then, repeatedly throughout the paragraph, he connects “university” with “universal” as a way of suggesting that no area of significant knowledge should be left out of the university curriculum. He is using the meaning of university to unlock his argument rather than referring to other writings, scientific evidence, or his own experience.

If, with other authors, we consider the word to be derived from the invitation which is held out by a University to students of every kind, the result is the same; for, if certain branches of knowledge were excluded, those students of course would be excluded also, who desired to pursue them.

Is it, then, logically consistent in a seat of learning to call itself a University, and to exclude Theology from the number of its studies?

The first part of this portion (two small paragraphs) stays with the theme of the meaning of the word “university”. If it’s universal, suggests the author, then it should not only include all major fields of study but also, as a consequence, welcome all kinds of students. The concerns of students are what this portion adds to what’s already said; in addition, Newman repeats his call for the inclusion of theology, now as a rhetorical question: how could any exclude what is logically included?

As used in this section, the word “branches” most closely means

A. appendages.
B. areas.
C. arteries.
D. applications.

(spoiler)

The answer is areas. The phrase in which the word in question is found is “branches of knowledge.” Given that the author is talking about the university, “areas of knowledge” is the best interpretation of the phrase. Choices like “appendages” and “arteries” are meant to make the test taker think about “branches” in a more literal sense, with the mind going to trees or to the branched forms of blood vessels. “Applications” might seem tempting, but that word refers to the outworking of knowledge in real life–for example, in the design of a car or rocket ship. Newman is not referring to the practical outworkings of knowledge but to the categories of knowledge taught at the university.

But this, of course, is to assume that Theology is a science, and an important one: so I will throw my argument into a more exact form. I say, then, that if a University be, from the nature of the case, a place of instruction, where universal knowledge is professed, and if in a certain University, so called, the subject of Religion is excluded, one of two conclusions is inevitable,—either, on the one hand, that the province of Religion is very barren of real knowledge, or, on the other hand, that in such University one special and important branch of knowledge is omitted. I say, the advocate of such an institution must say this, or he must say that; he must own, either that little or nothing is known about the Supreme Being, or that his seat of learning calls itself what it is not. This is the thesis which I lay down, and on which I shall insist as the subject of this Discourse. I repeat, such a compromise between religious parties, as is involved in the establishment of a University which makes no religious profession, implies that those parties severally consider,—not indeed that their own respective opinions are trifles in a moral and practical point of view—of course not; but certainly as much as this, that they are not knowledge. Did they in their hearts believe that their private views of religion, whatever they are, were absolutely and objectively true, it is inconceivable that they would so insult them as to consent to their omission in an Institution which is bound, from the nature of the case—from its very idea and its name—to make a profession of all sorts of knowledge whatever.

As usual, the word “but”, in this case introducing this final paragraph, suggests an important point of departure. In this case, the author is not so much refuting or disagreeing with someone’s view, but rather using the “but” to acknowledge the need to flesh out his argument further because of a central assumption it must make: that theology is, indeed, a science. But instead of seeking to prove that assumption, the author proposes a “more exact form” with two options–options he presents as the only options available to the logical thinker. Either 1) the study of religion is not the study of truth and therefore not a science; or 2) a university admittedly omits an important branch of knowledge.

An important principle comes to the surface here: If an author raises a question, we should see if and how the author answers it. The question of whether theology is a science does open the door for Newman to support his claim that it is a science with evidence. But in this portion of the passage he chooses to wrap up this particular argument by restating his central point: that if theology is indeed a science because there is truth about God that can be discovered, then any university (based on the word “universal”) should teach the subject.

In this paragraph, Newman thinks that a subject should be taught at a university if it

A. can be studied in a laboratory.
B. classifies its content under different headings.
C. is considered unequivocally true.
D. is studied at other similar universities.

(spoiler)

The answer is is considered unequivocally true. This paragraph is a little more complicated and should be split into parts to aid understanding. In the first sentence, Newman acknowledges that he is assuming theology’s position among the sciences, so he resolves to show in more detail why it is such an important and necessary branch of knowledge. He then refers to religious compromises and suggests that they are naturally not taught at the university because compromises do not constitute knowledge. On the other hand, anyone from any field who believes their position to be completely true would object to that truth not being taught. (Although Newman doesn’t say this explicitly, we can infer that this would be true of the scientist or the historian as well; how could we not teach gravitation or the causes and effects of World War II?)

It’s this last part of the paragraph that gives us our answer by showing Newman’s true emphasis. Although theology might, and probably does, classify “its content under different headings,” it is not classification that makes it a source of knowledge significant enough to be taught at the university. No, to Newman theology should be taught because it makes a claim to absolute truth, containing a specific body of knowledge that can be verified or falsified but, at the very least, must absolutely be studied.

For Reflection

How well do you understand the Journey Method as it applies to a philosophy/religion passage?
How confident are you in applying the Journey Method to the technical details of this kind of passage?
Philosophy and Religion passages may come from ancient sources such as Aristotle or Augustine. Are you comfortable reading passages from ancient eras? If not, consider reading a book, or at least a chapter, from an ancient author as practice.