August 13. On this date in 2006, Peter Khan gave a talk titled "Education, Scholarship, and Global Civilization."

 

August 13. On this date in 2006, Peter Khan gave a talk titled "Education, Scholarship, and Global Civilization."

There are those who are deeply concerned that if their young people embark on education in a secular setting it will weaken their faith; for example, they should not study psychology because it rests on the material concept of human nature and that will take them away from religion. From that perspective, they should not study philosophy, or economics, or sociology, or history, or what ever because it will weaken their religious faith. There are those, perhaps (not many of them, hopefully) who feel that religion contains all the knowledge one needs; as quoted in the Kitáb-i-Íqán, knowledge is a point that the ignorant have multiplied, and by pursuing education in a secular setting one is exposing oneself to this multiplication of ignorance. There are some who have an apocalyptic view of the imminence of catastrophe, which gives rise to the question “why bother with education when the whole rotten mess is going to blow up anyhow?” This creates a pressure on young people not to make a long-term commitment of an educational nature.

Also, within the last few years, with the legitimate pressure for the core activities to be expanded and developed in the Five Year Plan, there are extremists who say that matters are so urgent at this time that we should abandon our long-term pursuits—educational or otherwise –because we have to get these 1500 intensive programs of growth. Their view is that nothing is more important than that, we should give up what ever else we are doing, just do this and maybe later (if there’s time) you can go and get your education.

...

We know that there is some accuracy in these concerns that certain Bahá’ís have expressed. There is some accuracy in the fact that one’s faith can be weakened by secular education, but it is intrinsically an inaccurate statement.

...

As regards the pressure of the moment (the needs of the Five Year Plan and the like) these are legitimate concerns. The House of Justice messages, including its Ridván message and that of 27 December 2005, do quite properly call attention to the pressing need for concerted action on the part of Bahá’ís all over the world in pursuit of the core activities, in developing clusters which can sustain and maintain intensive programs of growth. But these messages also distinguish between priority and exclusivity and the failure to make the distinction between priority and exclusivity is leading to distortions. We know where the priorities lie, the Five Year Plan, the message of the House of Justice. The House of Justice does not call for exclusivity. Friends here at this conference have spoken to me privately and asked me with great sincerity, “Is it alright to continue to have firesides?” Who am I to say no? Who is the House of Justice to abrogate something laid down by Shoghi Effendi so forcefully as the need for individual teaching, for firesides, for proclamation, for student activities on campus, for all the other things that make Bahá’í life rich and meaningful?