God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of 'Academic Freedom'
- Downloads：1643
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-09-08 15:21:06
- Update Date：2025-09-07
- Status：finish
- Author：William F. Buckley Jr.
- ISBN：1684512360
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Celebrate 70 years of the classic！
"For God， for country， and for Yale。。。 in that order，" William F。 Buckley Jr。 wrote as the dedication of his monumental work—a compendium of knowledge that still resonates within the halls of the Ivy League university that tried to cover up its political and religious bias。
In 1951， a twenty-five-year-old Yale graduate published his first book， which exposed the "extraordinarily irresponsible educational attitude" that prevailed at his alma mater。 The book， God and Man at Yale， rocked the academic world and catapulted its young author， William F。 Buckley Jr。 into the public spotlight。 Now， half a century later， read the extraordinary work that began the modern conservative movement。
Buckley's harsh assessment of his alma mater divulged the reality behind the institution's wholly secular education， even within the religion department and divinity school。 Unabashed， one former Yale student details the importance of Christianity and heralds the modern conservative movement in his preeminent tell-all， God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of "Academic Freedom。"
"For God， for country， and for Yale。。。 in that order，" William F。 Buckley Jr。 wrote as the dedication of his monumental work—a compendium of knowledge that still resonates within the halls of the Ivy League university that tried to cover up its political and religious bias。
In 1951， a twenty-five-year-old Yale graduate published his first book， which exposed the "extraordinarily irresponsible educational attitude" that prevailed at his alma mater。 The book， God and Man at Yale， rocked the academic world and catapulted its young author， William F。 Buckley Jr。 into the public spotlight。 Now， half a century later， read the extraordinary work that began the modern conservative movement。
Buckley's harsh assessment of his alma mater divulged the reality behind the institution's wholly secular education， even within the religion department and divinity school。 Unabashed， one former Yale student details the importance of Christianity and heralds the modern conservative movement in his preeminent tell-all， God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of "Academic Freedom。"
Reviews
Mike
，
Great context， horrible Narrator！！ The narrator， Michael Edwards has totally destroyed the outstanding writing of William F。 Buckley， Jr （WFB）。 Tony Pasqualini， who narrated “A Torch Kept Lit: Great Lives of the twentieth Century” by WFB really captured the WFB style， cadence， and spirit of the written word。 Excellent insight about institutions of higher learning presenting in their written words describing the goals and perspective as enlightened thought， freedom of thought， Belief in God， demo Great context， horrible Narrator！！ The narrator， Michael Edwards has totally destroyed the outstanding writing of William F。 Buckley， Jr （WFB）。 Tony Pasqualini， who narrated “A Torch Kept Lit: Great Lives of the twentieth Century” by WFB really captured the WFB style， cadence， and spirit of the written word。 Excellent insight about institutions of higher learning presenting in their written words describing the goals and perspective as enlightened thought， freedom of thought， Belief in God， democratic principles， smaller government， and private economies， but hires professors whose perspectives are socialism; collectivism; anti-religion， nationalization of commerce， and bigger government which in turn is forming young impressionable students， instead of teaching them to think and formulate positions and perspectives in an independent manner。 This book will offer prospective students and parents an insight what to look for when selecting an institute of higher learning。 Another must read by WFB。 Experienced as an Audio book。 。。。more
Dayla
，
I understand Buckley's carefully crafted argument against liberal professors teaching "collectivism" and their over-reliance on Keynesian-laced books to inculcate students of the 1950s at Yale University。 One only has to reread the newspapers of that day to understand the Communist-scare that permeated throughout the Cold War， but especially during the 1950s。 In support of Buckley's carefully laid-out argument， there is a side of me that appreciates someone with a differing point of view being p I understand Buckley's carefully crafted argument against liberal professors teaching "collectivism" and their over-reliance on Keynesian-laced books to inculcate students of the 1950s at Yale University。 One only has to reread the newspapers of that day to understand the Communist-scare that permeated throughout the Cold War， but especially during the 1950s。 In support of Buckley's carefully laid-out argument， there is a side of me that appreciates someone with a differing point of view being permitted to voice a counter-argument within the safety of a college classroom where all the attenuating restrictions concerning interchange and dialogue are present。 Given the lack of a well-researched debates in our universities today， where the counter debate is never given voice and too often "canceled。" People who debate learn rules of etiquette and polite interchange which would certainly improve the all-out negative vitriol that passes for debate today。My basic criticism of Buckley's book would be the use of his private religious beliefs as part of his argument to counter "collectivism" teaching。 What makes Buckley's Christianity the best Christianity to present to students？ Or why does he think that his Catholic Christian religion the best religion to present to the Freshmen Class？ Perhaps a Protestant may find offense with Buckley's Catholic Christianity。 After all， according to Wikipedia "anti-catholicism reached a peak when Protestant leaders became alarmed by the heavy influx of Catholic immigrants。 Some Protestant leaders believed that the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon who is mentioned in the Book of Revelation。" And what of other religious beliefs held by Yale students？Beliefs are just that: beliefs。 And they should be respected as such。 Now， 70 years after William F。 Buckley's book， we can note a recent reviewer's same need to have Christianity on display in classrooms。 Only now there is a consistently growing community of voices via the new "Christian Nationalism" who not only want their children to believe in Christianity， but your children must believe too， even if it means the United States has to get dictatorial about it。 See 2021 review of Buckley's book below: "By the end of （one's first） academic year， a product must be manufactured。 This is unacceptable to people of Christian moral beliefs。 Their path of education never ends as it meanders through endless errors。 Christians want to form a personality， not a professional。 They know that even without being able to become good professionals， students fight for their personality and soul。 Human education cannot be planned scientifically。 That would be the scariest thing because a person would turn into a machine。"Hmmm。。。 。。。more
Nick Papandreou
，
Excellent writing， excellent points about the "liberalizing" and secularizing effects of Yale （and other such institutions） from an individual who wishes that certain Christian values are brought to the forefront。 Plus in terms of economics a worry about the "communistic" tendency in economic theory that supports government intervention。 As to the first， the absence of a Christian /religious element at Ivy Leagues he is right。 However in terms of values perpetuated implicitly at liberal arts uni Excellent writing， excellent points about the "liberalizing" and secularizing effects of Yale （and other such institutions） from an individual who wishes that certain Christian values are brought to the forefront。 Plus in terms of economics a worry about the "communistic" tendency in economic theory that supports government intervention。 As to the first， the absence of a Christian /religious element at Ivy Leagues he is right。 However in terms of values perpetuated implicitly at liberal arts universities I would say that most of the Christian values are highly valued: honesty， support of others， charity， generosity。 And of course it is hard not to see that much learning reduces the tendency to believe in any text as some sort of overriding ur-authority to be followed blindly。 A liberal arts education obliges one to ask， to interrogate and to doubt。 Not what the tradition likes，。As for the "communustic" tendency of Keynesian economics， on this the good debater Buckley may not have expected that from Reagan and onwards the academia was inundated with new theories that dismissed the role of government as harmful and promoted the power of individual initiative and entrepreneurial cowboy like solitude as the agent of the economy。 It took the 2008 financial crisis and a pandemic to bring Keynes back to life。 So from about 1980-2020 academe was mostly anti-government in terms of economic theory。。。 See the rise of the Chicago School， rational expectations， Barro， Friedman etc。。 。。。more
Okan
，
Good book。 I'm nearly as old as Buckley was when he wrote this and I wish I had half the guy's talent。 Buckley doesn't seems to argue from circumstance but from definition so I disagree with those who dismiss it as something merely for 'historic value'。 It's still relevant。 Or at least much of his argumentation is still easily applied to current debates。 Good book。 I'm nearly as old as Buckley was when he wrote this and I wish I had half the guy's talent。 Buckley doesn't seems to argue from circumstance but from definition so I disagree with those who dismiss it as something merely for 'historic value'。 It's still relevant。 Or at least much of his argumentation is still easily applied to current debates。 。。。more
Austin
，
Last semester， I discovered that a professor of mine was one of the few conservative college professors left in the United States who haven't been bullied out of academia。 After speaking regularly on topics such as "cancel culture" and the general environment of fear in the American education system， we began to discuss good book recommendations for any conservative students who felt as if they could not go public with their beliefs。 The professor felt as though there was only one book that trul Last semester， I discovered that a professor of mine was one of the few conservative college professors left in the United States who haven't been bullied out of academia。 After speaking regularly on topics such as "cancel culture" and the general environment of fear in the American education system， we began to discuss good book recommendations for any conservative students who felt as if they could not go public with their beliefs。 The professor felt as though there was only one book that truly held the title of being the seminal work on the shift in ideology within American universities， "God and Man at Yale" by William Buckley Jr。 I had never read anything from WBJ， but I had regularly watched his "Firing Line" specials in which he took on all matter of left-wingers including "academics" like Noam Chomsky and Timothy Leary and professional race-baiters like Jesse Jackson。 After reading "God and Man at Yale，" I discovered that even at the age of 25， Buckley had proven an expert on the issues of collegiate radicalization and the growing secularization within the U。S。While dated， as many other reviews have made clear， WBJ uses the work as an exposé of Yale University， including her faculty and staff。 In each chapter， Buckley addresses a specific department of the university， i。e。 economics or religion， and their role in promoting anti-Christian and socialist narratives。 Other chapters focus on extracurricular activities， including Christian organizations， that have overtly abandoned their religious roots in favor of progressive causes。 Perhaps the most important chapter is the book's last which provides a framework on how a university's alumni can promote change to counteract progressive academics。 Buckley argues that it is obligation of the alumni to speak out on issues of secularization in colleges before enough students can be indoctrinated， ultimately creating a self-serving cycle of hiring left-wing academics funded by new left-wing alumni。 A prediction on the part of Buckley rings very true， that unless the problem is corrected now （ as in 1951）， universities will soon exceed the point of no return。 I believe it's safe to say that that limit has been reached。 Yale University currently receives 73。 3% of its grant and contract income from the federal government and has moved past the need to scam its conservative alumni。 While it may be too late for universities like Yale to reverse the influence of progressive academics， the problem is still correctable in smaller， rural， colleges like my own。 I would encourage any conservative college student to read this incredibly important work and use its message as a framework in creating conservative clubs and institutions on campuses。 Only then will we take back the culture。 4/5 stars 。。。more
Daniel Buck
，
All the more relevant today。
Julian
，
“Skepticism only has utility if it leads to conviction。” What a great quote for modern times。 The book I read was published in the 80s and really addresses the failure of communism to work in this society。
Cassie
，
Fascinating to read this 70 years later。 Too bad the alumni didn’t heed Buckley’s warnings。
T
，
A book length attempt to cancel others and trample over free speech
David Riseley
，
Skip chapters 1 and 3。 They're now relics of their time。 Skip chapters 1 and 3。 They're now relics of their time。 。。。more
Lloyd
，
To be fair， I did read this book knowing it was a detailed， 70 year old critique of an educational institution I have no connection to。 I wasn't expecting to get much out of it that I could use in my daily life。 But there have been a lot of references to this work in other things I've read， and I was interested in putting some of those quotes in the proper context。With regard to the ideological trend leftward in （especially elite） higher education between then and now， this book contains a lot o To be fair， I did read this book knowing it was a detailed， 70 year old critique of an educational institution I have no connection to。 I wasn't expecting to get much out of it that I could use in my daily life。 But there have been a lot of references to this work in other things I've read， and I was interested in putting some of those quotes in the proper context。With regard to the ideological trend leftward in （especially elite） higher education between then and now， this book contains a lot of principled social commentary that is perhaps more pertinent today than it has ever been， given how far academia has shifted since Buckley's era。 I came away feeling that the modern books， essays， and articles I've read addressing that topic have cited him correctly。Meanwhile， the folks who have been using ideas from this book disingenuously are those who call for and openly celebrate lapses in separation of church and state in the USA， tenuously trying to use Buckley's case against Yale as justification。What needs to be understood is that Buckley was calling upon the board of a private school， founded for religious purposes， to be more true to the religious values still called for in its charter。 He was not laying out a broad-based argument for all education， or public institutions of any type， to pursue such objectives。 The U。S。 Constitution is still the charter that all remaining sectors of our society need to render true faith and allegiance to。 。。。more
Elliott
，
At a time where seemingly every item of popular culture has been subject to a reboot or sequel it's often worthwhile to go back to the original source material。 God and Man at Yale is the prototype of every， single right wing book in print right now， and William F。 Buckley is the prototype of every right wing political commentator。 Ben Shapiro for instance has perfected Buckley's "Firing Line，" making a point to stack his audience， practice the questions， and choose subpar opponents while jousti At a time where seemingly every item of popular culture has been subject to a reboot or sequel it's often worthwhile to go back to the original source material。 God and Man at Yale is the prototype of every， single right wing book in print right now， and William F。 Buckley is the prototype of every right wing political commentator。 Ben Shapiro for instance has perfected Buckley's "Firing Line，" making a point to stack his audience， practice the questions， and choose subpar opponents while jousting non-sequiturs and strawmen for the rapturous applause of "Debate-me-you-coward！" neckbeards。 The sentiment that the original is usually better is true here- not that that's really a compliment: stale urine is a great deal nastier than fresh urine after all。But， it's all here。 From accusing everything and anything of being "socialist，" to violating the sacred Judeo-Christian values of Western civilization。。。 The book is incredibly modern for being incredibly dated all at once。 。。。more
Warren
，
Sadly， the Keynesian economics Buckley complained about in this book have comeback with a vengeance。 Much of the books breezes over the confused half-assed academics at top universities。 This part seems like it deserved to be drawn out more with more details。 There’s a lot there， enough for several books。
Gavin
，
Eye opening。
Marty Mangold
，
This book seemed fundamental to better understanding this writer: his first mega-hit book， written just out of college。 This audio book （read beautifully by Michael Edwards） is the 60th-anniversary edition， with a long introduction by the author。 I've served enough time in academia to be interested in Buckley's long scold of his alma mater。 He sees a battle for Yale's soul going on， between atheism and socialism vs。 religion and capitalism。 To start， WFB puts the faculty on trial for their relig This book seemed fundamental to better understanding this writer: his first mega-hit book， written just out of college。 This audio book （read beautifully by Michael Edwards） is the 60th-anniversary edition， with a long introduction by the author。 I've served enough time in academia to be interested in Buckley's long scold of his alma mater。 He sees a battle for Yale's soul going on， between atheism and socialism vs。 religion and capitalism。 To start， WFB puts the faculty on trial for their religious views， coldly classifying particular people as Christians or non-believers， practicing Catholics or that other kind。 He reminded me of The Church Lady on Saturday Night Live， with a better vocabulary。He moves on to economics， and here he's in a strong area。 The economics faculty and the authors of the required books were espousing wealth inequality being addressed by capital gains taxation， income taxes， death and inheritance taxes， yet wealth equalization would ultimately weaken Yale’s financial structure by eliminating wealthy donors。 His analysis of the four core economics textbooks was compelling， concrete and enjoyable。 The third topic was teaching， and its balance of teaching to research， the value of a consolidated mission of a school vs。 "academic freedom，" a term sees covering a multitude of sins。 He thinks Yale should have， pretends to have， yet lacks an actual academic mission， and its goals are completely disconnected from administration， hiring and teaching。He says that a strict values test for faculty "would make me restless and unhappy。" A nice phrase， but then， what is the point of this book？ He quotes Howard Lowry's book， The Mind's Adventure， which came out in 1950， the year WFB graduated and one year before GAMAY （that's Buckley jargon for this book）: I am left with a suspicion that WFB set out to mimic Lowry from his own perspective， and that makes me restless and unhappy。 His final topic is Academic Freedom， and the role of alumni。 He confronts the realization that commonly comes with graduation: we paid our money， took some courses， and now we are dismissed to make room for others。 His news flash is that alumni don't make academic decisions （well， duh！）。 He thinks alumni participation is fundamental to Yale， maybe to private colleges everywhere。 This was a stretch for me: I attended a private school for graduate work， and it never occurred to me I'd have any influence as an alumnus。 He thinks we can encourage people to think for themselves in a way that guides them to reach the conclusions we ourselves hold。 I think he was pretty well ruined for professorships by this book， and that's a good thing。 I look forward to following his later works， and did enjoy this book even while considering that it contains a lot of hot air。 A nice romp for the mind。 。。。more
Jerry
，
Outstanding look at Yale in the mid 20th century， and Buckley's predictions have come to pass。 Outstanding look at Yale in the mid 20th century， and Buckley's predictions have come to pass。 。。。more
John Minster
，
Fascinating to read today given the present debate， but a bit too granular for my test。 One can also tell that Buckley wrote this when he was younger--his writing isn't as smooth。 Fascinating to read today given the present debate， but a bit too granular for my test。 One can also tell that Buckley wrote this when he was younger--his writing isn't as smooth。 。。。more
Bryan
，
Buckley saw the problem 70 years ago and now we are chest deep in it。
Kevin
，
This book reads like a "strongly worded" letter to the management of Yale。 My general impression is that Buckley was disappointed that his Yale professors didn't think as he did and that they ought to。 I've read a lot of William F。 Buckley Jr， and this early work feels like just that， an early work。 Additionally， I don't think the experiences of a student at an Ivy League school in the 1940s really tell us much about academic freedom in the present。 There are some themes of the early modern cons This book reads like a "strongly worded" letter to the management of Yale。 My general impression is that Buckley was disappointed that his Yale professors didn't think as he did and that they ought to。 I've read a lot of William F。 Buckley Jr， and this early work feels like just that， an early work。 Additionally， I don't think the experiences of a student at an Ivy League school in the 1940s really tell us much about academic freedom in the present。 There are some themes of the early modern conservative movement but， again， this 1940s early Cold War perspective is all a bit dated。 The 1960s youth movements entirely upended many of his arguments about individualism and "collectivism" as he calls it。 I don't identify as a conservative so I feel giving this book any sort of rating would be misleading。 That said， if I were to rate it， it would be poor since it was difficult to glean larger ideas about conservative thought and modern higher education from a long diatribe from a former student towards his alma mater。 That said， and perhaps this is the privilege of Buckley， he seems to have been successful， well-liked， given a good education， and given tools for a life of success as a conservative public intellectual from the very same school he felt the need to pan in this strongly worded long form letter to the manager。 。。。more
Pastor Greg
，
This isn't a book for everyone。 But it is of great historical value and interest。In 1951， a recent Yale graduate published a book that blew the lid off of the PARASITES at Yale who were taking over what was originally a Christian University and turning it into a cesspool for communistic indoctrination。 God was all but removed from Yale by this time。 Capitalism was attacked and centralized government-controlled （planned） economic policy was promoted。This book is of note because it was one of the This isn't a book for everyone。 But it is of great historical value and interest。In 1951， a recent Yale graduate published a book that blew the lid off of the PARASITES at Yale who were taking over what was originally a Christian University and turning it into a cesspool for communistic indoctrination。 God was all but removed from Yale by this time。 Capitalism was attacked and centralized government-controlled （planned） economic policy was promoted。This book is of note because it was one of the first to gain mass attention and appeal。 This book， therefore， put forth William F。 Buckley Jr。 as a famous （or infamous， if you're a commie bastard） conservative Constitutionalist and defender of Theism。 （Buckley is Roman Catholic but spent most of his time taking a more general position in defense of God vs。 Atheism。）Due to it's being more than half a century old， much of the information and nearly all of the names mentioned are "dated" and only of historical value。 But the methods employed by the skeptical Socialists are typical of those used in schools， churches and other organizations all over America as Liberals （who rarely every BUILD anything） work like infectious PARASITES to undermine the institutions that built our great country and turn them into godless bastions of Marxism。If you like William F。 Buckley Jr。 you will like this book。 If you like this book， you will love William F。 Buckley Jr。 Even when I disagreed with him （for example， I agree with Ronald Reagan against Buckley in the debate over the Panama Canal）， I still loved the man for his overall conviction and courage to stand against the common enemy of all good Americans。 。。。more
Lukas Evan
，
One of the dumbest books ever written by someone with a reputation as an intellectual。
Mykolas Lozoraitis
，
At first this topic seemed primitive and bureaucratic， but when I began to be reflect on it， it‘s really not。 No one better than Christians see the collapse of universities。 Even if we presumed that today’s Western universities are rising to new heights of perfection， no one doubts in it stronger than Christians do。 Their thoughts on their place in the university today can only cause laughter， as the current universities belong to atheists and agnostics。 Since these are not satisfied with the un At first this topic seemed primitive and bureaucratic， but when I began to be reflect on it， it‘s really not。 No one better than Christians see the collapse of universities。 Even if we presumed that today’s Western universities are rising to new heights of perfection， no one doubts in it stronger than Christians do。 Their thoughts on their place in the university today can only cause laughter， as the current universities belong to atheists and agnostics。 Since these are not satisfied with the universities they have created， Christians must leave their silent reflections unspoken。 Society continues to show the usual indifference to Christians。 According to tradition， eleven of the twelve apostles died by martyrdom。 Christians don‘t experience death ad bestias， but the university continues to be a place of "cognitive dissonance" for them， as described by sociologist Jürgen Habermas。 A man is divided by cognition and faith， but in universities only cognition remains left。 To understand how modern Christians feel at university， it is necessary to find the answer to two questions: 1） What is the modern science？ 2） What the modern studies are about？ Since the first question has already been answered many times and scientists tend to have little interest in what science actually is， just automatically work on it， we should start from the second question。 It must be said that Christianity is not a scientific discipline， it is understood as a way of human life。 Ancient Greek thinkers also understood philosophy as a way of life。 Christians are like philosophers， but their way of life is based not only on the mind but also on the faith。 When university student comes into the Christian community， he comes into the community of students， not teachers。 His teachers are moral authorities， not people with narrow professional interests。 Neither of Jesus' followers nor any of the twelve apostles were scientists。 They were fishermen， customs officers， traders， doctors， and other professions that had nothing to do with the academy of science。 For sure Jesus could not teach in a modern university because he has no publications。 This means that the biggest spirit creator in the Western world today is doomed to stay behind the university。 Christian students， unlike scientists， who want to manage all areas of human life， understand that they cannot have greater social and political claims because of their Christian beliefs。 Every sober-minded Christian today realizes that Christianity is a little-needed thing in Western social life。 If offered to choose either Christianity or science， the citizens of today’s democratic society would probably choose science。 In the current type of universities Christians live like Pontius Pilate – in a small ghetto。 Christians have become a minority that respects pluralism。 They have no missionary fever， meanwhile academic life has its economy。 When liberals and the left once again take the opportunity to mock Christians， they are taking a step that is politically unacceptable and democracy-destroying。 They still believe that Christian churches are still powerful and influential social force。 It‘s an approach that has no basis。 Current Christianity critics need to understand that they represent the majority now and that Christians are a minority。 Liberals have become too much into their own political performance and most of the times begin to create comedy。 We have been living in a liberal world for a long time already， but still they keep on continuing to portray themselves as dissidents， somewhat rejected and misunderstood。 In today's universities Christian students don‘t understand the concept of progress because they don‘t think that scientific and technical progress is a key factor in defining human development。 The best part of society by them are the saints， not scientists， therefore the Christians must be condemned for conservatism， traditionalism， and backwardness。 If there are still those who haven‘t done it， this can be done quickly in the internet。 In today’s universities， Christians are not even asked if they can prove the existence of God。 This is usually required to do by methodological rules established by researchers and scientists who doesn‘t care about the fact that Christians are guided by the unscientific conception of truth。 A Christian seeks something that is scientifically impossible。 His whole life is not just content of articles and books written in beautiful encyclopedias。 Representatives of the natural sciences today care about the conquest of nature， technology and power， not the truth。 With Christianity leaving the university， the idea of truth will be replaced by the concepts of "new inventions"， "new theories" and "new scientific productions"。 Scientists keeps on using the word „truth“ concept， which in fact was not even invented by them。 It‘s not difficult to notice that current scientists are not interested in the truth， but rather in a new move in the language game of some specialized science。 To them novelty is more important than truth and new technologies are more important than life。 Scientists are no longer searching for the truth， but only developing new hypotheses based on nothing。 In today‘s university Christians are shocked by the intolerance of scientists。 It‘s a no secret that modern scientists want to connect all areas of human life to the standards of scientific thinking。 Christians don‘t have similar totalitarian claims long time ago。 Those who try to force conversion to Christianity are evil Christians。 However， no one calls scientists who turn the scientific understanding of the world into bad scientists。 These are dealing with statements that don‘t require grace to understand and acknowledge， it‘s just enough to seat young people on a school and university bench。 From the first years of life， children are accustomed to the scientific worldview。 In this respect， there is no difference between the Soviet Union and the Western world。 In both cases materialism that is inseparable from scientific thinking continues to dominate。 At today's Western university， we will surely find a unit dedicated to the study of religion， which is intended to be „a gift“ from Christians and other believers to atheists and agnostics。 Religious studies is probably better than scientific atheism， but theologians don’t really care what’s important to Christians。 They care about the scientific methods of cognition of religion， not the truths of the faith， its confession and implementation。 When God is being interpreted by theologians on the basis of the circumstances of society， economy and culture， the order of interpretation and understanding of the world is immediately destroyed。 God is certainly not a society， an economy and a culture。 Christians believe in God because it exist， not because sociologists and psychologists have proven that believing is scientifically beneficial。 Unlike Christianity， science cannot provide spiritual renewal。 At least after the end of scientific research， the scientist cannot say that he has stopped to be prone to pride， greed， impurity， and wickedness。 According to today’s universally accepted methodological belief， science is value-neutral and therefore can serve both God and the devil。 Christians can‘t afford similar universality。 They perfectly know that people， who are thieves， greedy， jealous， perverts， who surrendered to human pride will never inherit the kingdom of God。 The method of scientific cognition allows more than the Christian code of morality。 American sociologist Eric Anderson is tirelessly trying to prove that marital infidelity is not only permissible but also scientifically based。 In his words， a distinction needs to be made between sexually and morally important things and in the case of conflict， sexual desires must be given priority。 The reality is that Christianity is not as tolerant as Mr。 Anderson。 People have read many recipes for happiness written by similar type of scientists， but ultimately it turned out to be unsuccessful。 Offering recipes for life is an inconsistency of scientists， because they are unable to talk about the meaning of life。 One of the principles of modern science is not to have some sort of meaning， but to know the facts。 Some scientists today already say that the main purpose of human life is self-protection。 This means that man does not really have a purpose， because the purpose of nature cannot be the goal of a being with moral self-awareness。 Beavers， squirrels， cats， sparrows， and camels are unaware of their moral obligation。 According to the theory of natural evolution， it‘s impossible to prove human moral abilities。 Based on a purely scientific view of the world， man can be turned into a random object。 If scientists really took over the nature， personality would be destroyed and only the natural cause mechanism would remain。 What scientists call natural causes， Christians often perceive as flaws and sin。 Even more impressive is the liberation from morality in the work of contemporary artists。 There is no stupidity that could not be described as modern art。 Since modern artists and scientists can‘t recognize the truth， for a Christian student it‘s difficult to understand why is that what the Church says is called irrationality， meanwhile what scientists say is recognized as truth。 If moral thinking was overpowered by cognition based principles of scientific methodology， humanity would end up in a catastrophe。 There would be no personality， no freedom， no moral duty。 They would be replaced by government-funded science determinism and managerial manipulation。 Christians working and studying at the university today must hide their biggest shame - faith in God’s free intervention in world events aka miracles。 A student， who has entered university studies based on the strict principles of scientific determinism must be ashamed of his prayers for the health of his ill loved ones。 He must hide that by praying he believes that not only doctors， but also God has intervened in the chain of causes of illness。 In the same way， a university student can only secretly ask God to help to become a better person。 In the classrooms Christians can‘t be taken seriously if they talk about soul and conscience， because it‘s not proven by empirical methods。 Everyone in the university must behave etsi Deus non daretur。 Only when they return home or go to the Church they can quietly thank God for the given grace。 Similar behavior people used to call hypocrisy。 Now it‘s an every day life in Western universities。 A person who doesn‘t believe in God is perceived a priori as better than a believer。 The current university is based on pedagogy alien to Christianity。 The pedagogy of today's universities is based on the model of consumer goods production。 By the end of academic year， a product must be manufactured。 This is unacceptable to people of Christian moral beliefs。 Their path of education never ends as it meanders through endless errors。 Christians want to form a personality， not a professional。 They know that even without being able to become good professionals， students fight for their personality and soul。 Human education cannot be planned scientifically。 That would be the scariest thing because a person would turn into a machine。 Today‘s university scientists talk about „scientific production“， meanwhile humanities and social sciences are between God and Mammon。Modern science has done many great works and without it the modern world is unimaginable， but at the same time it‘s distorting man and society。 The world is not just what current scientists say about it。 Today it‘s necessary to listen to the voice of Christians， who have been expelled to their ghetto。 Only Christians can say that many things important to human life are way closer to religion than to science。 Christians are right by saying that some important areas of human formation need to be taken away from scientists。 Today it‘s clear that Christianity， which has been mocked by scientists for centuries， has maintained way more humane view of a human than science did。 When a person makes a lifelong confession at the end of his life， it‘s way more meaningful human act than a diagnosis written by a doctor。 It‘s just as much more humane to ask God "take me" than to demand Dutch euthanasia。 It‘s much more humane to believe that God， rather than the disputes of scientists ensure the moral identity of personality。 。。。more
jdav
，
This sucked mostly buckley whined about atheism for half of it。 I like buckley but this was garbage
Matt
，
Well， this was exhausting。 I picked this up after reading Nicholas Buccola's excellent The Fire Is Upon Us: James Baldwin， William F。 Buckley Jr。， and the Debate Over Race in America earlier this year。 （A book which I loved， took copious notes on， and， for some reason， have never gotten around to reviewing。） Buccola asserted that Buckley reaches for a form of relativism in God and Man at Yale， and it was that particular accusation that I wanted to investigate for myself。So far as accurately repr Well， this was exhausting。 I picked this up after reading Nicholas Buccola's excellent The Fire Is Upon Us: James Baldwin， William F。 Buckley Jr。， and the Debate Over Race in America earlier this year。 （A book which I loved， took copious notes on， and， for some reason， have never gotten around to reviewing。） Buccola asserted that Buckley reaches for a form of relativism in God and Man at Yale， and it was that particular accusation that I wanted to investigate for myself。So far as accurately representing what Buckley said， Buccola was entirely fair。 I'm just not sure about the relativism part。 John Chamberlain explains Buckley's position in his introduction: that Yale ought to teach （"inculcate the values"） of Christianity and the free market， not because they are true， but because those paying for Yale （students & alumni） believe them to be true， and， as consumers， ought to insist on the teaching that coincides with their own values。 Of course， Buckley believes that both positions are true， though he chooses not to argue for them。 His aim is purely political: activating a base of Yale alumni to pressure the school。So it that relativism？ Probably not。 It's not a relativism to encourage consistency between belief and behavior， and reading Buckley in good-faith， I think that's how he would have seen his project。But all the same， in assuming the truth of his claim and making the issue what the Yale alumni and trustees *wanted* taught， Buckley shifts from a pursuit of truth to encouraging those who have a degree of power to determine what's worth teaching， and that posture is troubling， especially in hindsight。 It implies an epistemic gulf between "conservative values" and， well， everyone else， in a way that's politically savvy， but that discourages good-faith discussion and contributed to what Tom Nichols has called "the death of expertise。" Buckley， at least， did it with intelligence， but many of the conservative commentators， who are both his heirs， and often， imitators， have doubled down on it， usually with less giftedness。 As I wrote in a note on The Fire Is Upon Us， the result of their "refusal to justify conservative principles to those who do not already hold them results in a movement that gradually grows less intellectual and more tribal as time passes， and similarly， in failing to consider the intellectual basis for its own beliefs， closes itself off to the possibility of reform。"I don't want to overstate my case; I'm not suggesting that you can draw a direct line from Buckley for Trump; history could have taken a different path， there are absolutely other factors， and plus， that would probably be crediting Buckley with too much influence。 But I do think it's possible to see Trump and the current QAnon conspiracy， and our desperate polarization， as possible futures latent in Buckley's rhetorical move， possible futures we were unlucky enough to realize。 。。。more
Arthur
，
Having had my fair share of attempted indoctrination whilst in college in the 21st century I was curious how it compared to what Buckley went through in the latter 1940s。 I rate this book a 3。5 （rounded to 4）。 I think most reasonable persons see college as a time for intellectual growth。 Exposure to new ideas。 I also think most would agree that its unethical and professional for a teacher to badger students into believing the teachers own personal viewpoint。 Buckley lays the case and cites numer Having had my fair share of attempted indoctrination whilst in college in the 21st century I was curious how it compared to what Buckley went through in the latter 1940s。 I rate this book a 3。5 （rounded to 4）。 I think most reasonable persons see college as a time for intellectual growth。 Exposure to new ideas。 I also think most would agree that its unethical and professional for a teacher to badger students into believing the teachers own personal viewpoint。 Buckley lays the case and cites numerous examples of professors who belittle Christianity， and often during courses that have no strict ties to religious dogma。I dont feel Buckleys points on religion have aged well in the 70 years that this book has been on the market， but his case about economics still rings true today。 If this book was meant to be a clarion call to Yale alumni to let them know what's really being taught to their children then its certainly well written and researched deeply enough to make that point。 。。。more
Dave Harbert
，
Very interesting to find out that in 1950 Yale was teaching ideas that are still controversial today。 Things like income inequality， inheritance tax to eliminate passing down of estates， whether government debt is something to even worry about， promoting socialism and communism 。。。One side note is that I usually struggle with Buckley’s over use of vocabulary beyond my knowledge。 I end up either looking them up in a dictionary （which is good for me but slows down the process） or just skipping ove Very interesting to find out that in 1950 Yale was teaching ideas that are still controversial today。 Things like income inequality， inheritance tax to eliminate passing down of estates， whether government debt is something to even worry about， promoting socialism and communism 。。。One side note is that I usually struggle with Buckley’s over use of vocabulary beyond my knowledge。 I end up either looking them up in a dictionary （which is good for me but slows down the process） or just skipping over them。 This book was written when he was fresh out of Yale and at 22 years old， his vocabulary was not quite as developed as it became later in his life。 There were still 30 - 40 tough words but that’s over the entire book。 His later op-ed pieces might have 10 tough words in that short essay。 。。。more
Joel Tweeten
，
I am very pleased with this book。 William F。 Buckley， Jr。 was a 24 year-old graduate of Yale when he wrote it。 The book was his clarion call to Yale's elite， the alumni， with an eye on the descending barometer of social responsibility。 Those values that had been held since the schools founding were being undermined （then， 1950） by the complacency of its trustees and administration。 This， a laissez-faire management of educators contributed to a confusion between the freedoms granted to research a I am very pleased with this book。 William F。 Buckley， Jr。 was a 24 year-old graduate of Yale when he wrote it。 The book was his clarion call to Yale's elite， the alumni， with an eye on the descending barometer of social responsibility。 Those values that had been held since the schools founding were being undermined （then， 1950） by the complacency of its trustees and administration。 This， a laissez-faire management of educators contributed to a confusion between the freedoms granted to research and that "academic freedom" claimed by the teaching staff。 This then led to the advocacy of socialism and atheism from the podium in the lecture hall contrary to the aims and spirit of the school。 The author's view， fresh from his experiences as an undergraduate brilliantly illuminates the conundrum which holds our contemporary educational system in gridlock。 。。。more
Canaan
，
Wanting it to not be true of me that I， a liberal， never "read books from the other side" or "engage with ideas I disagree with，" etc。， I've set myself to read some of the conservative and libertarian greatest hits。 Growing up in a politically and theologically conservative evangelical home， I've always had some familiarity with what I'd call the mainstream conservative worldview， but reading some of the conservative classics has given me greater understanding of what I grew up with。 This book， Wanting it to not be true of me that I， a liberal， never "read books from the other side" or "engage with ideas I disagree with，" etc。， I've set myself to read some of the conservative and libertarian greatest hits。 Growing up in a politically and theologically conservative evangelical home， I've always had some familiarity with what I'd call the mainstream conservative worldview， but reading some of the conservative classics has given me greater understanding of what I grew up with。 This book， which Buckley calls Gamay in the introduction， is #44 on the National Review's best non-fiction of the 20th century。 George Gilder says of it: "Still correct and prophetic。 It defines the conservative revolt against socialism and atheism on campus and in the culture， and reconciles the alleged conflict between capitalist and religious conservatives。” Some observations:In its focus on curricula and the role of education， it reminds me of another great conservative text， C。S。 Lewis's The Abolition of Man。Gilder's comment above is really quite interesting。 In the 1977 reissue introduction， Buckley emphasizes that Gamay's observations and critiques are pertinent only to his time at Yale in the 40s， and that he couldn't speak to conditions at Yale or other campuses at any other time。 Yet Buckley's book is taken as definitive of the entire "conservative revolt" against campus culture and culture generally。 To me it seems that this revolt has persisted in full force， often unmoored to real conditions or experience; or， in other words， that it has taken on a life of its own。 It is necessary for the specter of socialism and atheism （or cancel culture， political correctness， radical leftism， etc。） to exist and to be an existential threat so that the conservative revolt may continue。 Hence the air of unreality and histrionics of （it seems to me） much conservative critique of culture， on and off campuses， which one finds， for example， in the latter day pages of Buckley's magazine。For me， the most surprising thing about this book was Buckley's argument that Yale's alumni can and should control the curriculum， who teaches， and which ideas and values are amplified/respected （or dampened/discarded）。 Buckley has no problem with atheistic or socialistic doctrines being taught at Yale per se; his problems come in when those teachings are at odds with the religious and political views of Yale's alumni and leadership， which he's convinced they are。 It was surprising to find this argument here because it seems to me that it， or a close version of it， can be handily used to deflect many of the critiques brought by Buckley's intellectual heirs against PC and/or cancel culture， i。e。 amplifying some and dampening other views/ideas to conform to the （student， alumni， faculty） groups' values。 That itself is an exercise of freedom （speech and association） that Buckley champions here。Another relevant irony has to do with Buckley's complaint that he， a conservative， won't get a hearing with Gamay。 The litany of responses to Buckley's work cataloged in the 1977 introduction， and the stir it caused -- the debate， the exchange of ideas， the action -- belies this complaint， as it seems that many contemporary complaints to the same effect are overwrought， or are issued in the context of highly public disputes in which the conservative has an influential standing。 In sum， this is an interesting， if （because of its focus on Yale in the late 40s） somewhat dry read。 It’s helpful for getting into the conservative mindset。 。。。more
Prooost Davis
，
In the second semester of my freshman year， I was slightly taken aback by the assignment of a book called Literature from the Bible。 I had spent my life in church， and the idea that the Bible could be studied as something besides "the word of God" was a radical idea， indeed。 But， as time went on， I became a textbook example of the student who is corrupted by those liberal professors。William F。 Buckley， Jr。， as a recent graduate of Yale， still had not gotten over the liberalism of the professors In the second semester of my freshman year， I was slightly taken aback by the assignment of a book called Literature from the Bible。 I had spent my life in church， and the idea that the Bible could be studied as something besides "the word of God" was a radical idea， indeed。 But， as time went on， I became a textbook example of the student who is corrupted by those liberal professors。William F。 Buckley， Jr。， as a recent graduate of Yale， still had not gotten over the liberalism of the professors there， and saw fit to write a book that he hoped would act as a corrective。For Buckley， there were three things that made America the success that it is: Christianity， free enterprise， and individualism （as opposed to collectivism）。"I therefore looked eagerly to Yale University for allies against secularism and collectivism。" What he found instead were teachers mocking belief in God， and economists teaching from Samuelson's Economics， which was way too enamored of central planning。In Buckley's view， a private university should inculcate （his word） the values that its administration and alumni profess to believe in。 So-called Academic freedom was a hoax。 （Having gleaned from things written about the book that Buckley thought that the alumni should dictate what was taught in college， rather than the experts in the various fields seemed， and still seems， ludicrous to me。 But Buckley made his arguments， and I'll try to cover them as best I can。）"I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world。 I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level。" As an atheist myself， I agree that it's an important battle， but Buckley and I are on opposite sides。 It's also interesting to me that Christianity， which is mostly expressed collectively， should be analogous to individualism。 But Buckley wanted to grant individualism a religious imprimatur。Buckley lamented that impressionable freshmen were being indoctrinated with ideas that he believed the alumni and the administration would find inimical to the good of society。 He doesn't ask himself why many of these classes and teachers are so popular with students。 （I'll come back to this later。）He gives examples in two chapters of Yale's treatment of religion and individualism and finds them wanting。 Buckley sought "intellectual and inspirational support for his faith，" and didn't find it。 He complained that students could substitute philosophy or history credits and bypass religion altogether if desired， thereby denying religion "equal status" with other subjects。 （To me， this merely reflects that Yale and the world had left Buckley behind in some previous century。）"Almost all the books assigned dealt with religion wholly as a cultural phenomenon， of no greater or lesser interest than ecology or diet。" Buckley made an attempt to differentiate facts from values， but was unwilling to admit that values might be informed by facts， and that things change。Buckley held the opinion that unfettered capitalism equalled freedom， and that help from the state was slavery。 Now， this is the expected belief of a member of his social class。 But he never asked the questions， "Freedom for whom？ Prosperity for whom？" To Buckley， any degree of socialism just led to communism。 But， to me， communism's two great flaws are its pseudoscientific trappings and its "kill the bosses" attitude。 Socialism， to me， springs from a compassionate attitude of the well off toward the less well off， and the realization that lack of regulation leads to Gilded Age abuses of laborers。 The ruling classes do not automatically appreciate the value of labor to their enterprises。God and Man at Yale was Buckley's plea to alumni and administrators to care as much about these values as he did， and as they said they did。 But he found them disappointing。 The alumni seemed only interested in the collection of money for Yale， and not at all in the "inculcation of values" that Buckley considered the greatest goal of education。 I found Buckley's dedication to these ideals touchingly childlike and naive， much like my surprise that the Bible could be something other than holy。 They shored up the world of his parents， and， not incidentally， the status quo of the class system in America。Buckley called "academic freedom，" as most people know it， a dedication to what he called laissez-faire education （laissez-faire not being a good word in this case）。 He himself saw education as an economic transaction: the people who "buy" an education deserve for it to be what they want it to be。 They pay for a product， and that product should please them。 If a teacher will not teach the values they already believe in， he should find a job at another school。 Education should be agreeable to the purchaser， and validate his beliefs。 Buckley's own version of what academic freedom should be is "the freedom of men and women to supervise the educational activities and aims of the schools they support。" Nothing about the consumer of education as coming into the transaction as the relatively ignorant seeker after as-yet-unknown truth was to Buckley's liking。Buckley talked a lot about individual freedom， but， interestingly， he referred to alumni， parents， and administrators the overseers of education。 Buckley normally chose his words carefully， but I wonder if he was even conscious of the charge that the word overseers carries？Buckley looked forward to a time when there would be "no market" for socialist teachers。"If the people are to retain their sovereignty， the cannot relinquish their right to impose unemployment upon the trader in commodities or ideas for which there is no market。" But， in Buckley's time， as I mentioned earlier， the courses he reviled were some of the most popular on offer at Yale。 。。。more
Michael Perkins
，