• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

An Early Look at Net-Price Calculators

March 16, 2011, 1:02 pm

This fall, every college that receives federal financial aid will have to post a net-price calculator on its Web site to help prospective students estimate what the college would cost them after grant aid.

As the October deadline approaches, conversation about how the calculators should work is heating up. The calculators will be discussed at a hearing to be held Thursday by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, an independent group that advises lawmakers and the U.S. Department of Education.

And the Institute for College Access & Success has weighed in with a new report that examined existing calculators and found “a great deal of variation” in how easy they were to find, use, and understand.

The report, “Adding It All Up: An Early Look at Net Price Calculators,” considers  16 calculators that were already online in January. Because the calculators were up in advance of the deadline, the report notes, “For colleges that appear to have developed  their own calculators (rather than using the federal template or a third-party vendor), it is difficult to tell whether the net price calculators currently posted are already intended to meet the federal requirements.”

The report recommends that the Education Department should encourage colleges to:

  • Make the calculators easy to find on their Web sites.
  • Limit the number of mandatory questions users must answer.
  • Emphasize the “net price” figure (cost of attendance minus grant aid).
  • Explain how work and loans differ from grant aid, if these forms of self-help are described in the calculator’s results.
  • Provide a clear explanation of who can access the information users put into the calculator and how that information is being protected.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • 22063319

    Only colleges that accept freshmen are required to provide net price calculators. Graduate/professional-only institutions and schools that require a freshman year elsewhere and begin their programs at the sophomore undergraduate level or above are not required to provide net price calculators.

  • betterschool

    This is a perfect example of government regulation: an ill-conceived and ineffective response to a real problem. True net price calculation would account for estimated time to degree (empirically derived from each *programs* averages). Institutional-level statistics are virtually meaningless.

  • kjohehir

    You left out the American citizen brain drain, where ex-pats are finding their services (in my case teaching ESL) far more in demand in India and China than I am at home. Many new ESL teachers start their careers in China due to the sheer volume of vacancies. The cost of living in China is half of the U.S.A, and since most of us do not drive here, many are able to save between 30-50% of our incomes.

    Additionally, from a teaching point of view, my students are extremely polite and well behaved. In four years have only seen one student “go ballastic” over my taking his cell phone away during class. I could have been stabbed for that in the U.S. in my last school.

    Something to think about….

  • amberdru

    You’re worried about the wrong thing.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdhIR1-s8Mg

    Dan Rather
    We uncover new allegations of massive visa fraud and giant loopholes that critics say are allowing hi-tech multinational companies to discriminate against Americans. According to several high-tech…

  • amberdru

    THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

    Columbus resident Darrell Rathburn is one of the many caught up in this whirlwind.
    Even though he has a master’s degree in computer science and decades of experience working for Fortune 500 companies, he quit his job search after two years of looking.
    “I decided to throw in the towel and accept the fact that I was involuntarily retired,” he said. …

    Louise Karl holds a doctorate in biotechnology, has years of lab experience and has had research published in prestigious journals. She’s been looking for full-time work for six years.
    “There is no skill shortage,” she said. “I probably know 20 people with Ph.D.s in biology, chemistry, et cetera, and none of them can even get an interview.”

  • raymond_j_ritchie

    I am Australian. I spent 12 years of my life as a post-doc (5 in USA), published 61 peer-reviewed publications and I cannot get a job in Australia. The last academic position I applied for a few months ago (at University of Queensland) had over 300 applicants. I gave up applying for jobs in the USA years ago.
    I am packing up for Asia where I have been offered a job. I should have done it years ago.
    Hint. Try and get a fellowship to go and visit an Asian university for a while. I won an Endeavour Executive Award from the Australian Government for 4 months. If they like you they will make you an offer. That is how it works there.

  • cwinton

    Good grief … those who employ the term “scientism” should count themselves as among those whose lives require the structure of a canon of beliefs, which strikes me as just another form of religious behavior.  Science is simply how we seek to separate fact from fancy, and unfortunately for those with cherished beliefs, to sometimes demonstrate how foolish some might be.  In its very short history (even within the very short period of human existence), science has unraveled a lot of what was once considered to be mystical or magical, raising as many questions as it has answered.  Religion clings to what was once considered immutable, whereas science is its own worst critic, constantly refining and revising what was once considered settled (e.g., a particle in motion not exceeding the speed of light).  Mathematics deals with uncertainty by making a set of assumptions, and then developing the consequences of those assumptions as irrefutable theory.  Science uses mathematics to model, and when things don’t match in some heretofore unconsidered circumstance, refines the model and adjusts the assumptions driving the mathematics.  Since the mathematics is irrefutable, that certainty gets transferred to the scientific theory even though neither the model nor the assumptions behind it covers all possibilities; i.e., there is always room for improvement.  That’s the fundamental dissonance between science and religion (or at least dogmatic religion).  No scientist would every expect science to explain everything, or more to the point, be certain that established principles apply in all circumstances.

  • 11182967

    Why can’t we just say that science can explain everything that is explainable, ie, the very concept of explanation implies the application of something like what we understand as science.  Beyond explanation is not more explanation, it’s only, at best, speculation.  The realm of the explainable constantly expands, but  there is always a border beyond which there are no current explanations.  Whether that border recedes into infinity we don’t–and by definition can’t–know.  We can only know where the border may now be found.  The question “Can science explain everything? only makes sense if the three final words are defined, and unless they are defined in the way I’ve suggested the question will never make sense.  To think otherwise only leads to a somewhat more grownup version of an undergraduate dormitory bull session–”full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

  • roppenheimer

    OK, I will jump in here.  Science is important precisely because of its two key elements, reproducibility and clarity, as mentioned in the article.  Assuming that most science today is a journey towards a unified theory of everything, we are constantly learning new facts based on new tools and approaches for conducting research.  Most are aware of the fairly recent news that changed the way science thinks about the universe and its origins and eventual disposition when it was proven that the universe is not only not contracting, but in fact is expanding at an even greater rate than originally thought.  Does this explain the origin and purpose of the universe?  Of course not, but it does let scientists better focus their efforts and hypotheses based on these new facts.  As a stop on the journey, it is a very important discovery.  But, it does not explain “everything”…yet.
    As for human perception and all the interpretation that accompanies humans who hail from various locales and backgrounds, clearly there is NO science involved in these elements, which include such ideas as emotions, beliefs, and non-collective unconscious/autonomic nervous system behavior like fight or flight, blinking, breathing, etc.  Clearly science can, using instruments, determine what parts of the brain are active during such events, but the “why” part is shuttled off to the collective unconscious theory or some other ones that I don’t know about, but which are used to describe “reactions” to various stimuli.

    When you step off the science bus and into the world of psychotherapy and so forth, you enter a world that is mostly lacking in reproducibility and clarity, so theory is abundant and, like statistics or literary criticism, can be slanted to deliver the desired results.
    Religion, which a character in Contact identified as something that “the other ninety five percent of us [are suffering} from some form of mass delusion" about, is not really a science question.  Science will probably never answer questions about human faith regarding a specific religion, but I have seldom met a medical professional who believes that life is an accident that is merely the result of evolution.  So, some guiding intelligence may exist and be responsible for starting everything that has become our universe.  This, I believe, IS discoverable by scientists as we launch--budget permitting--the James Webb follow-on instrument that is predicted to "see" the edge of the expanding universe and whatever is beyond that "edge."  Possibly there will be no huge discovery from this data, but my money is on finding something that might help better explain the physics of it all.

    One must obviously separate today's scientific facts from those that came before and those that will come after, but planetary science is, at best, a huge guess based on some facts and some theories.  As our abilities to discover more scientific facts are improved, we will discover new information that better explains the physics of our universe.  That information, in my personal opinion, will not in any way change people's personal beliefs regarding religion.  I am, therefore, confused by the entire premise of the article.  If faith and religion are diametrically opposed, as illustrated once again in Contact--I like the whole idea of the film--during this exchange:

    Palmer Joss: [Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God] Did you love your father? Ellie Arroway: What? Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him? Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much. Palmer Joss: Prove it.

    From this we ascertain that faith, like love, is not a scientifically provable fact; thus humans can have experiences that do not lend themselves to easy scientific measurement, not to mention reproducibility and clarity.  Thus, the explanations we seek to describe these experiences must necessarily be based on some form of human/animal reactions that are viewable using brain-activity instruments, but are not explainable using the tools of basic science we have available to us today.  I have no idea what the future will bring that may change this situation, but if these events and experiences can be described scientifically someday, I am certain that they will be.

  • wrbilledwards

    The terms and style of this discussion seem to set it up for failure, a degeneration into adolescent name-calling.  There is a certain sense in which we could say with some confidence that “science cannot know everthing,” based on the essential method behind Godel’s unprovability and Turing’s uncomputability. results.  A true “Theory  of Everything” must include the theorists and thus be vulnerable to paradox and contradiction: it cannot explain the explainers.  But it does not follow that religion, faith, philosophical speculation, or fantasy can furnish trustworthy answers to the questions that science cannot.

    On the matter of reproducibility, even if an event is not reproducible, observations of it and abstract models to explain it may be. 

    And it is surely a valid question who are observably the major “bullies” today:  scientists and secular scholars or theologians and religious activists.

  • landrumkelly

    If science could explain or answer everything, it could answer the question in the title of this article.

    Again, da capo:

    Epistemological claims about science cannot be verified or dis-verified using the scientific method.

    The philosophical-theological questions remain and always will.  Science cannot ultimately refute or confirm even the basic thesis of the existence of God.

    Since these questions keep coming around, I have a question: Can atheists be other than boring?  Or how about this one: Can a non-boring atheist exist?

    I have yet to spot one.  Does that mean that they do not exist?

    Landrum Kelly

  • smirach

    Stephen Barr’s book _Modern Physics and Ancient Faith_ is one of the best approaches to this subject I’ve seen. Fascinating, too, is Matt Rossano’s _Supernatural Selection_ — an evolutionary psychologist’s approach.

  • old nassau’67

    Four
    observations:

    1.
    “science is in the middle of confrontation with religious faith
    and with many other forms of belief. “. I would say that
    “science fundamentalism is in the middle of confrontation with
    religious fundamentalism and with many other forms of
    fundamentalism.” . The only difference is that religious
    fundamentalists are often willing to kill not only those of other
    faiths, but those of their own religion who differ. The Gran Sassso
    physicists who claim ftl neutrinos are being challenged, even
    ridiculed, but not burned or imprisoned.

    2.
    “an experiment done in one place by one person can be repeated
    somewhere else by someone else”. How about “…..repeated
    by a skeptic somewhere else.” Believers, apostles, and disciples
    can always reproduce the experiments of their deities, human or more.

    3.
    “History at its best is based on facts”. Very true. Unlike
    Afrocentrism, history’s analogue to science’s Lysenkoism, Phrenology,
    Astrology, etc.

    4.
    “Why do politicians feel comfortable talking about God and
    religion and not about science and mathematics?”

    Because
    politics is neither reproducible nor clear. Many constituents
    believe in creationism or intelligent design. Politicians deal with
    people; scientists, with nature.

  • couchmar

    I’m not sure why this article opens with the claim that “there is a *new* bully on the intellectual block,” as if claims to scientific authority are actually new or that scientism represents an early twenty-first century phenomenon. Debates about the scope and limits of science, and whether scientific knowledge explains everything, have been around since at least the scientific revolution. Some historical awareness would be useful on this issue. As a start, one might consider the philosopher Tom Sorrell’s book on this subject (which is among several books written on just this area).

    http://www.amazon.com/Scientism-Philosophy-Infatuation-Science-International/dp/0415107717

  • 115thDream

    This question (not a new one, as many have pointed out) doesn’t just concern “religion and science,” and that may not be the most helpful place to think about it.  It may be of broader interest to consider questions of ethics or justice.  Science is essentially *descriptive*, and while natural scientists are hard at work to give a descriptive account of our social and psychological practices of moral judgment, none of those accounts pretend to actually derive true “ought”-claims from “is”-claims.   IF there are true and irreducible facts about the good, natural science can’t explain them.   Maybe there aren’t any such facts, but are we to conclude that from the claims of scientists or the definition of science?  

    The question of whether science can explain everything is a question about the nature of the universe–that is, it’s a metaphysical question.  Scientism is some version of passing off metaphysics as science.

  • pianiste

    No, science can’t explain everything. But religion explains nothing.
     

  • renellin

    “We don’t know” is a non-answer. We don’t know anything in science, since any conclusion drawn in science is only good until new data arrive to refute it. To extend both conversations to overlap, if the common view (I know that’s difficult) of “God” was an actual being, a real figure, wouldn’t it make sense that God’s knowledge base would include so much more than ours as to seem fantastic to us, yet is commonplace and easily reproducible to ‘him’?
    More importantly to the conversation at hand as I see it, is people should recognize science for science and politics, ulterior motives, and conjecture for what they are. Ask more questions. If someone is telling you case is closed, no more discussion ever needed on a controversial topic, and they hide behind ‘science’ as having irefutably drawn the conclusion, that is an example of scientism–somebody using data, however, collected to further a goal instead of objective skepticism.

  • renellin

    Which is why, like evolution, they are called ‘theories’. I think you have really hit it here. Evolution–or the creation of the universe, is the business of guesses and theories since we can’t indisputably prove or reproduce them. This is why I, always having thought myself a scientist, was always surprised at the scorn which was applied to faith believers in such things. A scientist simply cannot say, “there’s no such thing as ghosts” and expect to be credible. How can a school say at the risk of offending some nebulous non-entity out there, you will not be able to say Christmas or use red and green napkins, or display poinsettias, but Charles Darwin’s work, though called by science a ‘theory’, is to be taken as the be all and end all of scientific fact.

  • keis8427

    Wrong…religion explains the human soul or lack of one (ahem…)

  • renellin

    Which is why the term ‘scientism’ comes into being. You easily dump all religion, an incredibly broad subject which you later pare down only to dogmatic religion into your notion of what is represented by that term–which you hint with such terms as ‘cling’ is a lesser animal. Yet you consider all science to be pure and clean, and you simply don’t consider the bombardment of what we face in this society today of those with political, commercial, or other agendas claiming to rely on ‘scientific facts’ and further claiming extra credibility by the term scientific being applied.

  • 3rdtyrant

    I don’t know a decent scientist who believes that science has a monopoly on anything.  They all agree with agent K from Men in Black: “1500 years ago, everybody knew that the
    Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that
    the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone
    on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”

  • renellin

    Clearly you are not paying attention. Since you’ve already made up your mind, no explanation will suffice.

  • katisumas

    This discussion is moot (and actually very unscientific!).  Neither science nor religion can explain everything, particularly not the fundamental nature of the unverse, or universes.  Our species doesn’t have a clue and never will….

    There seems no difference between individuals seeking a scientific theory of “everything” and those religious people who disregard science.  What they have in common is that “everything” thus what they have in common is the arrogance of claiming absolute knowledge and disregarding our human limitations.

    On the other hand, it is well within our cognitive make up to live with both the stories of religion and science.   Western science and religion both benefitted in the European Middle Ages when thinkers made a distinction between knowledge through reason and knowledge through revelation.  Unfortunately the fear of uncertainty leads too many of us to cling to absolutist notions…

    So let us remain humble and learn what we can within our very limited abilities.  Something perhaps even more urgent in our age that is seeing such a  frightening resurgence of the arrogance and violence of extremism.

  • katisumas

    And what “creator” might that be?  Are you referring to a specific religion?  Is there a cause and effect that has to ultimately lead to an individual imagined in anthromorphic terms?

    I do believe that some smidgens of knowledge can be acquired by religion (I am thinking of the knowledge of mystics) and some knowledge by science (though the two defintely merge:  how can we not think of Einstein’s “theories” as not mystical visions?)

    Why is it so hard to say:  “I am mere human and I dont know”?  Why is it that the possibility of this “not knowing” is so terrifying that it leads human beings to kill each other in order to stifle any reminder of human limitations?

  • katisumas

    Evolution has been reproduced in the lab.  Thanks to this, we have uncovered a number of treatments for cancer. 

  • katisumas

    Well put!

  • katisumas

    In science, new data does not refute the old, it builds on it.

    Did Einstein refute Newton?  Did Newton refute Galileo?

    …and why is it that you can only conceive of god as an anthropomorphic figure? And not for instance as energy, or priniciple or something entirely outside of what we are able to perceive?

    Aren’t you contradicting yourself when you claim that we can’t know what god knows but we do know what god is?

    To me true faith implies acceptance of one’s ignorance and thus also acceptance of science which acknowledges human ignorance.

    You’re right, we mere human beings very limited in what we know and what we can know, and that includes limited in imagining some sort of anthromorphic figure as a first cause, or as a big bang as a first cause. Or as the existence of a first cause to begin with.

    We don’t know. Why can’t we accept that? In the meanwhile, I am sure you would not refuse cancer treatment because it is based on the application of evolutionary biology? We’ve come a long way since/thanks to Darwin.

    If you really believe that god is a being whose knowledge is infinite, surely you can’t believe that he (it?) is bound by the same sort of time as we human beings are? So shouldn’t you agree with many people of faith that the “six days of creation” in Genesis are days of god and not the sort of days we human beings experience? So shouldn’t you believe that creation is still in the making in the form of evolution and that a few millions or billions years in our time could just be no time at all to god? Most denominations in the Judaic, Christian and Islamic traditions do. It’s only so called “fundamentalists” who see a conflict between science and religion (that goes for similarly minded scientists as well!) (“fundamentalists” so called, because they appear to be extremely selective when it comes to their scriptures)

  • rod2312

    The people using the word scientism are not necessarily referring to themselves as believers in canons, they are referring to the issue of science in itself constituting a system of belief.  These arguments (science versus religion, the value of science and mathematical models, etc) are all really very western.  When I was in school I was taught that science was a method of analysis and as such it really is open to question much like any other tools of analysis.  I also learned that Pluto was a planet.  I was made to memorize this “fact” but alas, it turns out that isn’t.  It was taught as a “fact,” not as a possibility.  This should also reminds us that the categorizations of “science” are actually not scientific.  That is, in science one can determine that a certain set of factors (determined by previous scientists) lead to a particular classifications, but those classifications are culturally based and quite human.  The inability to recognize that science is actually culturally immersed and the intensive promotion of this method above all others leads some people to use the word scientism to describe those who hold on steadfastly to beliefs about science in light of evidence of the human and imprecise nature of that tool of inquiry.  

    As an anthropologist I have to note that a long time ago in the science part of my own discipline, people with an appearance associated with subsaharan Africa were placed on the Hegelian hierarchical classification as something less than homo sapiens sapiens.  Maybe it is this kind of brutal application of science that makes some of us suspicious.

    @shushufindi - not everyone who uses the term ‘scientism’ considers themselves post-modernist.  In fact, I don’t remember anybody really transcending the tenets of so called modernity. Also, some minorities and oppressed peoples are scientists.  There is no implicit opposition between the two.

  • drob3122

    “Guesses and theories”? 
    There is a mountain of physical evidence that supports the *fact* of
    evolution, comparable in strength to the evidence indicating that the earth is
    approximately spherical. There is also a theory of how it happened, for which
    there is also a tremendous amount of evidence, including laboratory experiments,
    plus consistency checks, etc.  You do
    realize that the meaning of “theory” in science is nothing like “guess”, right?

  • pianiste

    Religion doesn’t “explain” the human soul, it just posits, on faith, the existence of one. As it does virgin births, risings from the dead, commandments from god, an afterlife, heaven and hell, angels, devils, and so on.

  • Socratease2

    There is no theory of evolution but there is a theory of natural selection. You are confused, theories are not guesses but are ideas based on all the best available empirical evidence. It is a fact that no theory can be proven true, only untrue, however that will probably confuse you further. That does not mean that theories are guesses it only means if, in the future new evidence emerges, then the theory has to change. We can’t say with 100% certainty that no new evidence will ever emerge, but, with theory of evolution like with theory of relativity, it has been confirmed over and over and over and there is no piece of evidence that challenges the theory of natural selection. So, technically natural selection remains a theory but in essence it is as close to a fact as the nose on your face. There is no competing explanation, and don’t even think of bringing up “intelligent design,” the biggest oxymoron of all time. I don’t don’t think any god will take credit for the mess they created here anyway.

  • Socratease2

    “Why do politicians feel comfortable talking about God and religion and not about science and mathematics?”

    Do you really need to ask? It is pathetic for the US politicians involved but they pander to the masses and if they wish to elected or re-elected in this country, then they will kiss babies and avow that they believe in a mighty creator that blesses our great country. Most of the founding fathers were atheists but didn’t have the balls to admit it and neither do the modern versions. See what happens to Obama’s church attendance after he leaves office.

    Secondly, science is a method and methods don’t explain anything, knowledge explains things. I find the question absurd.

  • philosophile

    I think a lot of this discussion mixes three things:

    1) Science–referring to a view of the universe and human existence developed over the last 450 years by physics, chemistry, biology, and their connecting disciplines.

    2) Scientific–referring to a method by which that understanding has been reached, but amorphous and flexible enough to allow disciplines like psychology, anthropology, sociology, and economics to claim or hope to be part of that view of the universe and human existence.

    3) Scientism–referring pejoratively to science both as substance and method (1 and 2 above).

    It seems to me the question, “Can science explain everything?” loses meaning when these three distinctions are recognized–or at least dissolves into other questions, complicated but answerable.

  • electronicmuse

    ” . . . politicians feel comfortable talking about God and religion and not about science and mathematics(?)” simply because they know know nothing about the latter, and anything can be said about the former–without fear of contradiction based on any known science.

  • rightside

    Actually, you’re misusing the term “theory”.  In other semantic spheres, “theory” might mean an educated guess.  But, it does not mean this when referring to “Scientific Theories”.  An explanation does not get to be called a “Theory” unless it is established and, more or less, irrefutable.  If scientists were using colloquial terms, they would call it “the fact of Evolution”.  There are not competing theories when it comes to evolution, just as there are not competing theories when it comes to gravity.  It explains all the known facts, and so far none of the research done on it has contradicted it, and so evolution is therefore called a “theory”, because that’s the word scientists use when they’re talking about facts.  

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GGYJHDUNVKTEZHQGY7VKCTZ2RM Me

    This is simply balderdash. Politicians opine on both science and religion with great frequency and generalization. Ms. Randall’s jousting with a straw man.

  • d2burke

    “Why” – because many are truly unsure of what they believe or the veracity of what they believe (despite their words and actions) so that when you say you “don’t know”, it is interpreted as “I don’t really believe you enough to say I know” which to them means….”you could be wrong.”
    Thus the balance they begin to feel in what they profess to believe becomes shaken and they get nervous and eventually adversarial.  The more comfortable a person is with what they believe and don’t believe…along with the idea that others may not agree…the more likely they are to tolerate (read: tolerate, not agree) other lines of thought. This is my answer to why so many people say that they don’t discuss religion or politics :)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GGYJHDUNVKTEZHQGY7VKCTZ2RM Me

    The discussion itself is a philosophical discussion. If anything can be gleaned from it, and it’s clear that both participants feel this is the case, it’s a clear demonstration that valid knowledge can be derived outside the scientific process. Even thought one can boil things down to scientific facts about information processing, sound production and reception, cognitive awareness, etc., this doesn’t actually get at the real meaning. The question of whether things have a material explanation, and if so whether that explanation is comprehensive, is a philosophical question.

    Acknowledging that science has limits doesn’t devalue science. If anything, it places science in its correct and valuable context as the primary method for interrogating the physical universe, limiting the damage done to it by those who would attempt to use it to make authoritative, decidedly non-scientific assertions.

    Certainly, science can certainly help inform other areas, but asserting that science can, will, or even might explain everything is a reductionist view of life in general. Even if one accepts a purely materialist view of the universe, one can recognize that other avenues offer valid knowledge that science cannot get at, either directly or indirectly. The aesthetic or philosopher might find use in a great deal of scientific knowledge about their subject, but also agree that thoughts, will, and choice, regardless of however much they may be mechanically derived, have force of their own.

    Both participants in the discussion seem to have acknowledged this in their own way. Not all valid knowledge is scientific knowledge.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GGYJHDUNVKTEZHQGY7VKCTZ2RM Me

    “Most of the founding fathers were atheists but didn’t have the balls to admit it and neither do the modern versions” This is historically demonstrably false. Unless Socratease2 proves to be both a mind reader and a time traveler, there’s very little here but an broad assertion about people whose writings don’t convey the reality Socratease2 insists must be so. The founding fathers includes the signers of the Declaration, a much broader group than the collection of deists Socratease2 seems to be focused on. Even among that group, many demonstrated evidence for belief in a God of some kind. Jefferson, for example, took the trouble to construct his own version of the Bible, cutting out parts he disagreed with or found dubious. While this can be found to be heretical or sacrilegious, it does not demonstrate the psychology of an atheist.

    Clearly, cynicism is not a particularly rigorous methodology.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GGYJHDUNVKTEZHQGY7VKCTZ2RM Me

    This kind of pithy nonsense may satisfy hard-core anti-religionists, but when you consider that people like Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and others dedicated their lives to noble causes in large part because of religion-derived understanding, it reveals itself to be a rather petty and self-serving view of the world.

    And to those who would make reactionary references to things like the Crusades, Islamic terror, etc., there is no question humans have used religious excuses for their own evil ends, but wiser heads know the difference between hypocrisy and sincerity.

  • viwap

    I wonder why you haven’t found any “non-boring” atheists…there are many of us out in the open–and probably many more still in the closet!

  • Socratease2

    Well, yes, time travel is a penchant of mine, how did you know? But ask my wife, she will certainly tell you I am no mind reader. As for cynicism, it is not a methodology in any sense (which I am sure you are well aware) but can you you think of a better critical perspective to take in understanding commonly accepted views of American political history? Yes, my rhetoric was a bit over the top but I am not going to argue who was an atheist, a theist or a deist (or some combination) among whatever group we designate as “the founding fathers.”  I would need to do more background research to argue further. I said “most” not “all” so I guess we can quibble over how many early political figures really believed in the god of the bible or not. Change it to “some” if you find that more accurate, but the point remains. I still argue that many (here we go again!) people today across all walks of private and public life, nominally present themselves as Christians or Jews, or whatever faith, but the reality is they are just afraid of not being labeled “abnormal,”  “immoral” or of not “fitting in” with the mainstream or their families. Regardless of how many people profess to have faith in some supernatural being, how many people truly live their lives fully in accordance with the tenets of that faith? When push comes to shove, a paltry few I say. For the Christian or Muslim faithful, if the next life is going to be so grand, why do people not want to hurry to get to heaven and leave this mess of a world behind right now? Now that would be an expression of true faith!  Damn, I think I was cynical again, I think will go comment on the cute puppy blog, it is easier to be up-beat there.

  • major_ray

    Truth includes science, but is not limited to science no more than bread is limited to peanut butter. you can make the best peanut butter sandwich in the  world and boast about how great you are for doing it. But as a Christian who is also a scientist I can tell you that the truth is both peanut butter and jelly. The truth can be found by working at the interface between the two layers, not by leaving off the jelly or the peanut butter. In any case, you just can’t get all the nuts out of the peanut butter or the lumps out of jelly.  Faith in the Word of God is the jelly and this truth comes from the heart, not the brain.

  • 22028784

    I am in favor of empirical research–we need more of it–but it is so resource intensive as to be an incomplete and impracticable basis for human life. As James March of Stanford University has said, Physicists have all the easy questions, meaning that social scientists have the tough ones. Social life is so complex that valid empirical research about many social phenomena are almost impossible and what is possible is almost infinite. It would take an impossible expansion of social scientists to empirically validate them all. Even then, the social world would have changed so much as to make much of the previous work irrelevant.

  • adamreed

    Randall’s “We don’t know” is a cop-out that evades a plain fact: for every claim that “science can never explain X” made more than some time t ago (fill in “magnetism,” “life,” “intelligence” etc. for X, two centuries or so for t) science has in fact explained X. This is an “empirical law:” with time, the probability, that science will explain any fact X, approaches 100%. Cosmologists are already working on explaining the “Big Bang:” our “universe” is likely to be an internal sub-universe of one (very large) black hole – every black hole has one. And Hutchinson’s “analogy” between history and religion is bizarre: historians have evidence to explain; religion has none. Disappointing…