(04-24-2015 05:49 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote: Anti-intellectualism? Dr Ben Carson's biblical worldview did not stop him from becoming a world renowned neurosurgeon. His faith actually helped lift him out of poverty.
Entire video worth a listen. Especially starting around the 9:20 mark.
If you reject radioactive dating methods (while using the wrong element), you
are anti-intellectual. If you claim mountains of scientific evidence don't exist simply because they conflict with your infantile worldview, you are an anti-intellectual. If you subscribe, against all empirical evidence, that things magically appear, you are an anti-intellectual. Having acquired a skill at a particular trade does not change that.
if he subscribed to the power of buffalo dust scatted by wood sprites, that would make him anti-intellectual.
so if there is a 6'6", 315 valedictorian DT who runs a 4.5 and belongs to an evengelical church, do we pass on him? would he be a good representative of Rice? suppose he wamts to preach his faith to the world amd wants to major in religion and polySci.
I'm quite sure we actively recruit evangelical Christians for most, if not all, or our sports teams, and academically as well.
Probably some of them are fundamentalists as well. Whether the admissions office would accept an application with an essay that took a strictly fundamentalist stance on evolution, I have no idea.
(Note: I am going to continue to hammer on the difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists, not to hit on Optimistic's post, but because they are not interchangeable. I think Optimistic intentionally used the term evangelical for a reason, and understands the difference - - I am clarifying the distinction for others, because it is a very important one.)
It's my understanding that our recruits (athletically and academically), have to submit essays prior to acceptance. Absent someone writing an essay or otherwise clearly stating they held to that stance in an application, I'm not sure how you would 'ferret out' that they held to a particular view.
Assuming that all, or a majority of Christians, were fundamentalists would be a prejudiced stance, and a person taking that stance would be wrong a significant portion of the time, and probably a majority of the time when applied to the subset of Christians who actually applied to Rice.
And in any event, 18-year olds can, and often do, have different viewpoints on issues by the time they graduate.
Rejecting an application solely on the basis of a fundamentalist religious viewpoint would seem, to me at least, to be a singular exception for universities that almost universally advertise their desire for a diverse and inclusive student body.
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2015 12:02 AM by Rick Gerlach.)
(04-26-2015 10:58 PM)JOwl Wrote: I like it. But to try my analogy again in a different arena: As an engineer, how would you feel about being invited to keynote on some area of your expertise, only to find out that the other speakers were going to be, say, an unrepentant Stanley Pons (cold fusion guy) and a nondeceased Stan Meyers (guy who claimed to build engines that used water as their ultimate energy source). Is that something you'd want yourself and your professional reputation associated with?
Perhaps a completely different viewpoint, and an analogy that may or may not mean something to you.
If you refuse to engage in discussion about ideas, and you remove your own ideas from areas where ideas are discussed, you also cede the discussion in that forum to only those ideas you disagree with.
If you believe that there are segments of the population whose beliefs are irredeemable that might be a sound approach. I don't know that I believe that about any human being. And even if only 1 out of 100 people can be moved from an 'irredeemable' viewpoint, is it then pointless to at least present your ideas?
The Amish are extreme pacifists, and have removed themselves from non-believing society to a degree. Their pacifism is remarkable, and the forgiveness they can display (witness the tragedy at the Amish schoolhouse earlier this decade, and the grace and forgiveness openly stated, because of what they believe) is admirable as an example of living out their beliefs even in situations where it is tempting to do otherwise. Having said that, their decision to 'be separate' minimizes the impact that they might have on others who disagree with their beliefs.
Refusing to engage with others who you disagree strongly with, in this case based on their anti-scientific approach to biology/evolution, strikes me as an Amish approach to things, moved to an educational setting. i.e., sounds like a different version of 'shunning'.
The fact that we're talking about athletic competition makes the argument even less compelling.
(04-26-2015 10:58 PM)JOwl Wrote: I like it. But to try my analogy again in a different arena: As an engineer, how would you feel about being invited to keynote on some area of your expertise, only to find out that the other speakers were going to be, say, an unrepentant Stanley Pons (cold fusion guy) and a nondeceased Stan Meyers (guy who claimed to build engines that used water as their ultimate energy source). Is that something you'd want yourself and your professional reputation associated with?
Perhaps a completely different viewpoint, and an analogy that may or may not mean something to you.
If you refuse to engage in discussion about ideas, and you remove your own ideas from areas where ideas are discussed, you also cede the discussion in that forum to only those ideas you disagree with.
If you believe that there are segments of the population whose beliefs are irredeemable that might be a sound approach. I don't know that I believe that about any human being. And even if only 1 out of 100 people can be moved from an 'irredeemable' viewpoint, is it then pointless to at least present your ideas?
The Amish are extreme pacifists, and have removed themselves from non-believing society to a degree. Their pacifism is remarkable, and the forgiveness they can display (witness the tragedy at the Amish schoolhouse earlier this decade, and the grace and forgiveness openly stated, because of what they believe) is admirable as an example of living out their beliefs even in situations where it is tempting to do otherwise. Having said that, their decision to 'be separate' minimizes the impact that they might have on others who disagree with their beliefs.
Refusing to engage with others who you disagree strongly with, in this case based on their anti-scientific approach to biology/evolution, strikes me as an Amish approach to things, moved to an educational setting. i.e., sounds like a different version of 'shunning'.
The fact that we're talking about athletic competition makes the argument even less compelling.
I think it's the fact that we're discussing the arena of athletic competition that makes your argument severely uncompelling. Joining as equals in an athletic conference is pretty much the worst way to engage with a place like Liberty to attempt to "redeem it (or for Liberty to redeem Rice, if that's your thing).
From the inside, athletic competition is an inherently me-vs-you, I-win-you-lose situation, pretty much the worst place to attempt to influence someone with sound argumentation. If we're they're on-field rival of the week, they're unlikely to look to us for good counsel, to soberly reflect on the positive values of our worldview. I mean, I suppose that we could take the opportunity of each game vs Liberty for our professors to reach out with op-eds about how wrong they are, and our fans to hold up pithy signs to same effect... but I'm pretty sure that most folks here who don't see Liberty as problematic would be strongly against such behavior.
From the outside, we muddy distinctions between Rice and Liberty. Having them in our athletic conference shines no light on our problems with their anti-intellectualism. You know what would do that? Rice publicly announcing it's departing CUSA because Liberty joined. But that's what I'm hoping to avoid.
Feel free to encourage Rice's academics to engage the designers of Liberty's curriculum. I'm all for discussion with an attempt to learn and influence. Setting them up as a team we compete against every week would hinder that, not help.
(04-26-2015 07:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Sounds like you would be against playing anybody but Atheist U. All religions have beliefs in things that cannot be proven in a lab - that is kind of the definition of religion.
I was just commenting on Ben Carson being perceived as an intellectual merely because of his trade; his public statements clearly demonstrate the opposite.
My problem isn't religions having ideas that cannot be proven in a lab. People are certainly free to believe whatever they want. Those continue to hold beliefs that contradict with things that can be conclusively demonstrated to be true should not be given a pass on their selective and willful ignorance, whether that ignorance is religiously based or not.
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2015 09:09 PM by Pellet.)
(04-26-2015 07:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Sounds like you would be against playing anybody but Atheist U. All religions have beliefs in things that cannot be proven in a lab - that is kind of the definition of religion.
I was just commenting on Ben Carson being perceived as an intellectual merely because of his trade; his public statements clearly demonstrate the opposite.
My problem isn't religions having ideas that cannot be proven in a lab. People are certainly free to believe whatever they want. Those continue to hold beliefs that contradict with things that can be conclusively demonstrated to be true should not be given a pass on their selective and willful ignorance, whether that ignorance is religiously based or not.
Just for clarification, what is it that can be conclusively demonstrated to be true that people are holding beliefs which contradict?
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2015 05:32 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(04-27-2015 10:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Just for clarification, what is it that can be conclusively demonstrated to be true that peopler holding beliefs which contradict?
Old earth? Common descent? Jeebus crackers aren't meat-based? Santa Claus isn't real?
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2015 11:02 PM by Pellet.)
(04-27-2015 08:39 PM)Pellet Wrote: My problem isn't religions having ideas that cannot be proven in a lab. People are certainly free to believe whatever they want. Those continue to hold beliefs that contradict with things that can be conclusively demonstrated to be true should not be given a pass on their selective and willful ignorance, whether that ignorance is religiously based or not.
Still sounds like you have a problem with every religion, as each that I know of include beliefs that cannot be demonstrated. If there is one or more that agree 100% with proven science, which are they?
For example, what does science say about a life after death? Is there a religion, other than atheism, that says one and done?
(This post was last modified: 04-30-2015 09:12 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
(04-26-2015 11:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: Again, the (to Pellet) bread to body transition is only if you take a quote of Christ's literally instead of symbolically. Thanks to the printing press and translations into German and English became more readily available, Anabaptists in Holland, and Baptists in England were among those who took the text symbolically during the Reformation. Even Luther, who was more concerned with other non-biblical practices and superstitions that had crept into the church, had a hybrid interpretation of the Lord's Supper (consubstantiation versus the transubstantiation you reference).
It may be fun to mock the literal interpretation, but ultimately the practice is not about the interpretation but what the practice is meant to symbolize regardless of the interpretation. You might want to focus on what Christ taught, and work from there. Getting worked up over what ultimately is a minor side point that can reasonably be explained by differences in interpretation isn't productive. I'm not a literalist on this at all, but I grew up Lutheran and can concede that it is at least possible that consubstantiation is accurate, without believing it.
This guy, who self-proclaims as having much experience as an anti-catholic preacher, seems to know a little something about this subject vis-a vis a Roman execution and the bolded lines in your post:
(04-26-2015 11:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: Again, the (to Pellet) bread to body transition is only if you take a quote of Christ's literally instead of symbolically. Thanks to the printing press and translations into German and English became more readily available, Anabaptists in Holland, and Baptists in England were among those who took the text symbolically during the Reformation. Even Luther, who was more concerned with other non-biblical practices and superstitions that had crept into the church, had a hybrid interpretation of the Lord's Supper (consubstantiation versus the transubstantiation you reference).
It may be fun to mock the literal interpretation, but ultimately the practice is not about the interpretation but what the practice is meant to symbolize regardless of the interpretation. You might want to focus on what Christ taught, and work from there. Getting worked up over what ultimately is a minor side point that can reasonably be explained by differences in interpretation isn't productive. I'm not a literalist on this at all, but I grew up Lutheran and can concede that it is at least possible that consubstantiation is accurate, without believing it.
This guy, who self-proclaims as having much experience as an anti-catholic preacher, seems to know a little something about this subject vis-a vis a Roman execution and the bolded lines in your post:
It's a rather long video. I watched about 15 minutes of it, maybe more. He is not anti-Catholic, I would characterize him as someone who specializes in Catholic apologetics (not a negative term for those who don't recognize it). I think you understand that and there is a typo in your post.
He makes/supplies an interpretation of the subject matter (the Eucharist or Lord's Supper), referencing church fathers vaguely, but his support of his interpretation is circular to a large degree.
I don't fault him for that, or begrudge him the interpretation. As I said above, it's not an issue I consider major, although I suspect some Catholics might. Ultimately it is still an interpretation, because he draws conclusions based on inferences and not clear statements. One of his inferences I would disagree with based on some specific things Christ taught. I could use some of his same points and make a case for a symbolic interpretation as well.
My one comment though is this. I suspect he was making a case for the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. However, in the 15 minutes or more I watched, he beat around the bush on the subject and never came right out and addressed the issue, or said, 'yes, this is why I think my interpretation supports transubstantiation', or 'this is what I mean by the Eucharist and how it relates to my non-Catholic friend's different position'. In fact, his repeated use of the term Eucharist and other 'church' terminology made it seem to me that his video was targeted to a Catholic audience, and not an attempt to reach someone unfamiliar with the concepts he was addressing.
He may have eventually got to that point, but I was time limited, and unfair or not, I got tired of waiting to for him to be clear about it. He said some things I agreed with in the process, don't get me wrong. But I wanted to break in and ask questions at several points, and you can't ask questions to a video. I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable on the subject. Someone with little or no background would've been lost pretty quickly.
I did not hear anything that would cause me to doubt my non-literal, symbolic interpretation of the Lord's Supper, or for me to not respect his belief's, although they probably differ from mine (granted I did not stick around quite long enough to be sure of even that).
/
[split] Dr. K's Mid-year Update
