next »

[merce]

Anyone who has read the thread rather than just a single comment would know not to confuse the conclusion with the strategy....

If you want to comment, why not address the arguments instead of making a snide remark that adds nothing to the debate?

Because it has been BOOOOooooooring (or even frustrating) not amusing as Dark_Globe suggested, seeing this thread play out. That's why I'm guessing.

[invinoveritas]

Too bad that you find rational debate over an important issue boring.  Perhaps you should try a kiddie chat room?

[72degrees]

Absolutely. But not in a "truth-seeking" manner. One's social construction of reality has much to do with their religious socialization which accompanies an influence on so many aspects of development. In this country, IMHO, I believe the academic world's hostility towards more conservative elements of Christianity is dangerous and healthy at the same time.

72degrees

[invinoveritas]

72,

I agree with your claim that: "One's social construction of reality has much to do with their religious socialization which accompanies an influence on so many aspects of development."  An important point....worldviews are very often shaped by one's religious upbringing and this has tremendous influence on one's views about reality/truth.  And many aspects of our so-called reality are 'socially constructed'. 

I'd like to know why you think the debate has not been 'truth-seeking'.  Is it that both I and hvernon seem to already found our 'truths' about it?  I can see how you might reach this conclusion (and you're probably right to draw it).  Speaking plainly, I think I'm right and I think hvernon is wrong.  But I am willing to hear arguments against my position and change my position if a convincing argument can be offered to the contrary.  Until such is offered, I stick to my arguments and my conclusions. 

So I would say that I am 'truth-seeking' in the sense that I am always open to hear objections to my conclusions on the matter and I am willing to admit I am wrong if it can be shown, but until a good argument is offered against my views, I continue to hold them.  Maybe this isn't 'truth-seeking' in the sense of 'no one knows any better than anyone else, so we will hope that we come across something true', but I think that philosophical attitude is mistaken.  I think I understand hvernon's view because it is one that I used to hold.  I now think this is a mistaken view.

So, yes....I think your comment is factual and a good point.  I can't help but wonder though....do you think that reality is 'socially constructed' in the sense of 'there is no truth of the matter'?  If so, I would have to disagree and I am willing to argue that point. 

I'm not sure if that is what you meant, but one can reasonably interpret it as such.  I think that there is 'real world' that exists independently of what we think about it.  Although there are some obvious 'social contructs'.....money....government...etc., whether or not there is a supernatural being, or whether or not faith is a valid means of acquiring knowledge.....these are objective questions with answers that are either true or false depending upon whether or not they correspond with what the world is really like.  Even if I already disagreed with hvernon from the 'get go', I listened to and considered his/her arguments....I think they have failed.  Defending a position on such questions, as long as one is willing to consider opposing arguments (with a willingness to change one's position if necessary) is 'truth-seeking' (what else could be meant by 'truth-seeking'?).  I think I have found a truth with a small t.  Do you know what I mean?

[daurousseau]

For those who like to debate arete, he states:

Primarily because I think a person's worldview usually determines what they think about ethics and politics and this has practical consequences that affect people.

Ask him, do not the practical things people do have consequences on their world view?

Or, in the language of his field, does not being determine consciousness?

Why do I bring that up since it hardly helps the faithful? Just to frame the fatuousness of debating world views. That's why colleges should skip comparative religion and do a little bit on method and premises (which is what arete is really talking about instead of world view). There's another Forum in the Chronicle with a good idea--adding Eigen and Winkler's book "Laws of the Game" to humanities courses. It has the incidental consequence of explaining why Intelligent Design is based on a shallow view of the universe. As another wit says, "If you can't appreciate the humbling redundancy and scope of random physical process, then you have settled for a lesser God."

[invinoveritas]

darousseau,

A good point!  I'll answer the question even though you did not ask me directly....

Yes....with some qualification.  Being does determine consciousness to some degree, but not completely or absolutely.  I agree that colleges should focus more on 'method and premises' if I understand what you mean by that correctly, yet I would disagree with your suggestion that debating worldviews is 'fatuous'.  I haven't read the book you've mentioned (though I intend to check it out), but I agree with your implied premise that many so called 'educated' people have a rather shallow understanding of science and logic.  And once a person understands 'the rules of game' and can distinguish fact from fiction, the vast majority of religious beliefs (which are part of a larger worldview....admittedly ingrained and 'socially constructed' to some degree....) fall into the 'fiction' category. 

I believe that revealing them for what they are is important and not fatuous.  That's a large part of what I've attempted to do on a number of threads.  I know that I haven't been successful with most of my interlocutors, but I think that is in large part due to their methods and premises as you suggested (and you are certainly correct that that is what I am really talking about more than worldviews).  My only exception to your claim is that I think sometimes it is the worldview itself that is responsible for the inability to see behind it and it is often the case that the worldview affects people's 'practical doings' rather than the other way around; thus I think it is worthwhile to debate the questionable worldview first....and this usually leads to the point you made.  I think it is proper to debate worldviews because the process does have the potential for an 'aporia'.  And, of course, religious apologists usually become very uncomfortable at this point rather than understand it!

[husqvarna]

Ask him, do not the practical things people do have consequences on their world view?

Or, in the language of his field, does not being determine consciousness?

Why do I bring that up since it hardly helps the faithful? Just to frame the fatuousness of debating world views. That's why colleges should skip comparative religion and do a little bit on method and premises (which is what arete is really talking about instead of world view).

daurousseau,

Thanks for the good comments.  I think this is a lot of what my previous conversation with arete1 was about, as well.  The interesting thing about Christian theology (at least the sort that I have been defending) is that method and ontology are closely tied together.  I think that is why the conversation jumped between talk about God (which I tried to steer away from defending or proclaiming because that wasn't my purpose or intention) and the knowledge of God (our discussion about faith and reason).  Because God's revelation of Godself is Godself (see the Prologue of John), the two are always in conversation.  So I appreciated your comments very much and I'd guess that really the whole conversation was about method rather than worldview, but they contribute to each other simultaneously.  In addition, I did not want to "justify" my belief in God or the existence of God, as I continued to clarify to arete1... this is because I was avoiding framing it in terms of a "worldview", but rather wanted to discuss method and premise without reducing either to anthropology (a "worldview" implies a viewer, and so anthropological grounding.  Arete and I, however, have both admitted a reality independent of the viewer and so neither of us would want to reduce our trinitarian or atheistic "reality" [in quotes because which one is true is contested] to our own adherence to that reality).  However, I think that whether or not direct debate about worldview leads to an impasse, so long as two different "worldviews" are present in the discussion, an impasse could very well be inevitable no matter what.

The difficulty with method, despite the fact that it is what we were both talking about, is that method is a human construct and so is always caught in this loop.  Arete1 would want to make "reason" transcendent of any reasoner, and so also I would want to make faith (and the reason that is ordered by it) more than simply 'what I make of it'.  That being said, reason and faith are only tools, whatever their grounding, and so they always eventually get caught up in the mess that you're trying to help us avoid.  That, I believe, is why our conversation ended up just being two monologues. 

I don't know if I'd be so glum as you... I don't think that your comments "hardly help the faithful".  It all depends on what sort of game we are playing.  Perhaps they hardly help the apologist, but that goes for every apologist, whether they deny or acknowledge their God.  So long as arete1 was providing an apology for atheism, I think he is no less one of "the faithful" than I am, and no more helped by your advice.  I, however, have not read your recommended book either, and perhaps my comments would change if I had.  I'm guessing, though, that you and arete are a little off the mark and don't understand what I'm trying to say, if you think that this conversation has ever been about anything but method.

[daurousseau]

worldview itself that is responsible for the inability to see behind it and it is often the case that the worldview affects people's 'practical doings' rather than the other way around

Materialism is dialectical, so, you're right. What you describe is the human comedy, what I read about at night when I pick up a novel. Matter determining being is what I read about everyday in the newspapers and eventually in history books--the human tragedy.

[invinoveritas]

daurousseau,

I think I see what you mean.  And yes....I agree with you (I think).  A point of clarification though: I didn't use the word 'dialectical' because I think one can stand by the position that ideologies/worldviews affect behavior while still rejecting 'dialectical logic' completely.  Do you agree?

[daurousseau]

Logic is just logic. It does not interact with its environment. The physical world does consist of interactions, including constraints that operate beyond their own level (meaning our level of description).

There's dialectical materialism and there's reductionism, what philosopher Wally Matson used to call "the crude view." I opt for the former. Don't we just use ordinary logic to analyse things? I'm a century too young for "dialectical logic" and half a century to old for "deconstruction."

Apparently there is a generation of professors who believe(d) that their thinking changes things, something to do with postmodernism, but they are fading away.

[studentaffairsed]

There should be space either in the curriculum or co-curriculum for the study of religion.

As I read through the comments made from the start of this discussion there is considerable anger related to this topic from those who feel that religion and the discussion of religion has no place in academe.  How can we ask students to check a part of themselves at the door.  For many students their religious beliefs do play a significant role in how they interact within the classroom.

Often in these arguments someone will cite the "pray before a class or athletic game" and continue to note the atheist who is offended or appalled that this is permitted.  But I argue that the religious students in the group could feel equally offended that we must fall to the lowest common denominator, which in fact may not be-- but due to arguments of separation of Church and State, have become.

Our secular society continues to erode away at the values and morals that help people make choices.

Whether we want to admit it or not, college campuses are already very anti-religion.  Students who value their religious life are often penalized for needing to attend religious services.  Although many feel that Christian privilege controls the calendar on campus in terms of when Christmas falls in relation to college breaks, many Christian students often feel as if they cannot attend Ash Wednesday, Holy/ Maundy Thursday, and Good Friday services, because they would miss classes.  (Holy Week from Palm Sunday to Easter is a greater importance than Christmas, yet Christmas receives more attention in the privilege debate.)  But more hold Christmas in greater light.

But courses (any courses) that allowed for discussion, exploration, and research will help students navigate the complexities of human religious expression.

[invinoveritas]

studentaffairsed,

I agree with your claim that religion should be a required course of study in colleges.  From what you've said, however, I think I disagree with your reason/motive of why it should be studied. 

You suggest that colleges should teach religion because students have religious beliefs and this shouldn't be 'left at the door'.  This is not why religion should be taught.  Religion should be taught because it is an integral part of our history and any educated person should have some basic knowledge of the world's religions.

If you don't agree with the reasons behind the seperation of church and state, then well.....I'm sorry.....I just don't have the patience anymore.

I think you've made two false statements:

1. Our secular society continues to erode away at the values and morals that help people make choices. 

How exactly?

2. Whether we want to admit it or not, college campuses are already very anti-religion.

Again...how exactly?

Wait....there's a third:

3. Students who value their religious life are often penalized for needing to attend religious services.

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I have never experienced this nor heard of it occuring. 

I know that if I had a student miss a class for say, Ash Wednesday, I would treat it the same as any other absence, no matter how silly I think the reason is.  You chose to miss class....get the notes from someone who was here.  Can I help you understand anything that you missed?  Is that 'penalizing' them?

[dogvomit]

I think that many of us believe that the moral virtues of our country are eroding.

I am not sure that is so much eroding as more open. 

Certainly, the role of secular society in defining morality.  THis has both good and bad repercussions.  Certainly, being a religious person does not make you a moral one.  How many gangsters (Capone) support/supported one secular outlet or another. 

Whatever you want to say, our decisions on absolute morality are not proving to be as solid as a few decades before.

In the 1960's-1970s we implemented a number of environmental and human health policies to preserve the environment. 
This was driven from the people. 
The vietnam war was ended, undoubtedly fueled by civic unrest.
A president left office after involvement/leading illegal/non-presidential activities in office, certainly in part due to puplic opinion.

Currently, we are rolling back effective environmental and human health policies to make a buck.
very few are saying anything.
Iraq is only a few steps from looking like vietnam, there is very little public unrest.
A president is stretching the law until it looks like long strands of bubble gum extending from a concrete path to the bottom of our shoes and barely anyone is taking notice.  When the VP contends he isn't a member of the executive branch, and that VP was involved in the Nixon administration.  YOu have to question why the public is paying attention.  When the president has closed meetings with convicted felons (ENRON) you have to ask his involvement.  When the president has clearly lied to get us into war instead of doing everything possible to avoid war, one has to ask if he has the good of his country at heart.  When our country becomes the subject of torture accusations that are later proven, you have to ask just what the hell is going on. 

When the general "joe" public ignores these kinds of things, some of which are clearly more serious than anything Nixon did and definitely more in line with impeachable offences than ever seen before, you have to ask just how morale this society has become. 

Ignoring war, human rights, serious environmental problems, and the best interests of peach are not only immoral, but also unwise. 

Anyone want to get some students rioting?  Maybe it will make a difference.  Where are the Berkeley folks when you need them!!

[invinoveritas]

Yes frogman, we would certainly be wiser not to ignore the best interests of peach.

Ha! 

sorry....I had to bite on that one.

[husqvarna]

Whether we want to admit it or not, college campuses are already very anti-religion.  Students who value their religious life are often penalized for needing to attend religious services.  Although many feel that Christian privilege controls the calendar on campus in terms of when Christmas falls in relation to college breaks, many Christian students often feel as if they cannot attend Ash Wednesday, Holy/ Maundy Thursday, and Good Friday services, because they would miss classes.  (Holy Week from Palm Sunday to Easter is a greater importance than Christmas, yet Christmas receives more attention in the privilege debate.)  But more hold Christmas in greater light.

There is an article on "Christian Privilege" in the university up right now-
http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/06/2007062901j.htm

I think I would tend to agree with the author's points (though not all of her conclusions), although I do recognize your point, studentaffairsed.  It is hard to adequately practice one's religion in a liberal [not in the politicized sense] educational atmosphere, although Christians certainly have it easiest of any religious group.  This is just as much a problem with the wider culture, however, as it is with the academy.

I certainly don't think that a liberal education is by definition secular, however, and because of this I would disagree with arete1's critique.  While not every university will be a place for a religious person to express themselves to the same extent, I don't think that there is warrant to rule out such a set-up entirely.  The separation of church and state has nothing to do with this.