Amaleq13

I will not abide having Star Trek and clowns insulted in this manner, sir.

Julian

I find this guy's comments laughable and highly embarrassing to himself. He makes fun of Vork's screen handle and draws allusions to Vulcans and Star Trek while he complains that Vork doesn't know what he is talking about. The name Vorkosigan has nothing to do with Star Trek (See info on the Vorkosigan character here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Vorkosigan ). So while complaining about Vork not knowing what he is commenting on, he, himself, seems to do the exact same thing. I am sure the irony is lost on such a simpleton.

He presents no salient points in his commentary and relies instead on invective and ad hominem attacks which is hardly the behavior one should expect of a 'doctor.' I fail to understand why anyone would take anything he says seriously.

I also do not understand Chris' comments above. While I agree that a degree, or lack therefore, as well as philosophical viewpoint, is not necessarily an indicator of proficiency, anyone who relies on the kindergarten tactics displayed by this wimp is hardly deserving of any academical regard.

This guy is a fool of low wisdom and insight and the time it took for me to write this post represents the full extent of time I am willing to waste on useless people like him.

Julian

P.S. I realize that I use ad hom attacks myself in this post but I am not claiming any authority nor is this comment made in a scholarly context.

jjramsey

Which is rather strange since Dr. West is a Bultmannian, or at least very fond of Bultmann's take on things:

The college from which Dr. West got his Bachelor's degree, Carson-Newman College, of which Wikipedia writes:

This makes a fair bit of sense, considering Dr. West's stated beliefs.

yummyfur

It's not that strange, when you realize that Andersonville Baptist Seminary is a distance learning school, I thought originally they were an online school, as that is how most modern distance learning schools are, but it seems from their program is still on cassette.

"At ATS we offer 6 undergraduate degrees and various graduate degrees. ATS, for the most part, offers distance learning by audio cassette tape. However, we are in the process of converting to CD’s in the immediate future."

So I think it's fairly easy to see why Mr. West went there.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Spin,


This is a good and funny point.


A degree in a field means that people previously judged competent in a field believe that you have reached a reasonable level of competency. It does not quarantee that the field itself has a real object as its focus, or that the field itself is capable of scientific study. One may get a degree in astrology, chiropractory or phrenology (study of the shape of skulls and its relationship to intellect and personality). To put it simply, the granting of degrees does not guarantee that scientific knowledge exists in the field.

More problematical is that general compentency in a field does not mean competency in every part of the field. For example, I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy, but there are wide areas in Philosophy where my knowledge can only be described as poor. I have studied very little midieval philosophy and I am sure that there are many people without Ph.D.'s or any degrees at all in Philosophy who could tell me a great deal more about these philosophers than I could tell them. (On the other hand when it comes to Plato or Aristotle or a number of other philosophers, I like to think that there are few people without Ph.D.'s who know more than me.)

So a degree simply points to a person having an extensive knowledge about a field. It does not automatically make that knowledge truthful. People should not use the fact of their degrees in place of arguments for positions, whether the degrees are accredited or not. A degree does not guarantee truth or prevent one from being in error.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Vivisector

Well said, Jay. Too bad this won't be seen where, in this context, it's most relevant.

Vivisector

Answerer

So guys, Vork left the internet forums/blogs because he can't stand some degrading insults coming from one or two fundamentalists. What the %&$&........

No offence but from my previous experiences, I do think he should be tougher than that.

spin

No, not fundamentalists. People who are supposed to be open-minded intelligent scholarly types. People who are supposed to have been trained to take a reasoned approach in their analyses. People who readily admit that there are problems and even errors with the biblical texts. When scratched, they reveal that the inquisition was not that long ago.

It's a matter of commitment. We are not dealing with fundy-bating here, but attempts at intellectual interaction in the field of religious studies.


spin

Ted Hoffman

Whereas I respect Vork's wishes to exclude him out of the discussions following his withdrawal of the "infamous" review, I see this as a war between rationalism and dogmatism. I have tried to limit references to Vork's review in deference of Vork's wishes. This is my take on the issue.

Well-Instructed Amateurs Against Star Trek Doctorates: The Tabor Affair

Introduction

Recent events in the world of bloggers and internet discussion groups marked a climax of the growing tension between conservative scholars who have wrapped themselves tightly around the mantle of New Testament Scholarship on one hand and the ever-improving, pervasive group of amateurs who progressively engage the works published by the mainstream scholars in the academia. It was a clash of two worlds, and the heat that the impact generated boiled off the boundary between these worlds and forced a confrontation that unmasked the conservatives. Observers afforded a glimpse of the terrified and insecure weakling that lurks behind the scholastic mien that conservatives adorn.

In May 2006, a well-instructed amateur ruthlessly debunked a freshly-published book by a respected scholar in the field and left it to waste even before impressionable crowds of lay Christian readers could eagerly line up to purchase the book. This review predictably embarrassed the scholar and his privileged friends in the academia. In the past, amateur reviews of "magisterial" works by scholars were met with smug indifference. But the review in question, which we discuss below, instantly shattered the mask of smug indifference and elicited intellectually hollow denunciations, instead of a crushing blow-by-blow logical refutation from them.

Read the rest

Thomas II

Deleted at Vork's request?...So then...he is not gone!
HE IS NOT GONE!!!
I KNEW IT!!...I KNEW IT!!!



I kew it...