Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RPS · 03-30-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

I wouldn't detect a slight note of sarcasm, would I

?

Maybe a little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Good point, but the discussion wasn't about politics, more about academically held convictions.

Canadian universities don't have Political Science departments?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Even with politics I would say the convictions are held less strongly.

So guys like Pol Pot and his minions aren't really commited like the folks at the Methodist church down the street holding a pot luck supper tonight?

Toto · 03-30-2006, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

...
And if you want to learn about religion, psychology/sociology would be the place. I was a bit surprised by a comment in the second link in the OP, that said that sociologists are often seen as "too religious." Speaking from Dutch experience that is certainly not true. Sociologists there are your typical red rabble rousers

. But does it hold in the US perhaps?

The quote from that link:

Quote:

Before this response begins to sound like the prelude to a class-action suit, permit me to observe that the type of discrimination encountered by secularists in biblical studies is precisely what believers working in the humanities and social sciences have endured for decades. The secular bent and bias of the American research university is well known. It is undeniable that many of its workers are prejudiced against sociologists, English professors, and art historians who are "too" religious. I do not know what the solution is, but I do know that two major neglected questions in our profession concern how religious belief interacts with scholarly research and how secular universities manage the study of religion.

He is saying that secular academics are prejudiced against religious sociologists, English professors, etc, or at least those who are "too religious."

I think this has changed lately, due to the rising power of Christians and the mandatory "tolerance" of all sorts of odd beliefs.

Toto · 03-30-2006, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPS

...So guys like Pol Pot and his minions aren't really commited like the folks at the Methodist church down the street holding a pot luck supper tonight?

There's many a former raving communist who is now a committed conservative.

But I think we're talking about academics, not activists.

gstafleu · 03-30-2006, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPS

Canadian universities don't have Political Science departments?

So guys like Pol Pot and his minions aren't really commited like the folks at the Methodist church down the street holding a pot luck supper tonight?

You seem to be trying to find exceptions that you can then elevate to the status of rule. So politics can be subject of academic research, my original point still stands (the one about academic persuits other than politics, and there are a lot of them). Similarly, good old PP is a bit extreme example. You should have mentioned Communism and Fascism as practiced under AH. Then I could have responded by saying these are secular religions (yes, there is such a thing).

No Robots · 03-30-2006, 03:31 PM

Academe as presently constituted is doomed anyway. Why whine about not getting a berth on the Titanic? You guys should start an atheist online free university.

dongiovanni1976x · 03-30-2006, 04:01 PM

This pretty much sums up the admitted difference between a scholar that is willing to let his/her premises go- if evidence to the contrary is found- with a scholar who has one assumption that they "must" not let go of- per N.T. Wright...

"Question to N.T. Wright: What advice do you have to help the conservative believer understand the value of the search for the historical Jesus?

N.T. Wright: A "conservative believer" must (my emphasis) be someone who believes that Jesus was truly human as well as truly divine. (Anything else is radically unorthodox.) That true humanity was a first-century Palestinian Jew. If God decided to become a first-century Palestinian Jew, anything I can do to find what makes first-century Palestinian Jews tick is part of my 'conservative believer's' theological quest and personal pilgrimage."

From: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/31/story_3134_1.html

Tigers! · 03-30-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There's many a former raving communist who is now a committed conservative.

But I think we're talking about academics, not activists.

But academics can be activists

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-30-2006, 03:31 PM	#25
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Academe as presently constituted is doomed anyway. Why whine about not getting a berth on the Titanic? You guys should start an atheist online free university.

03-30-2006, 04:01 PM	#26
dongiovanni1976x Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: St Louis, MO Posts: 686	This pretty much sums up the admitted difference between a scholar that is willing to let his/her premises go- if evidence to the contrary is found- with a scholar who has one assumption that they "must" not let go of- per N.T. Wright... "Question to N.T. Wright: What advice do you have to help the conservative believer understand the value of the search for the historical Jesus? N.T. Wright: A "conservative believer" must (my emphasis) be someone who believes that Jesus was truly human as well as truly divine. (Anything else is radically unorthodox.) That true humanity was a first-century Palestinian Jew. If God decided to become a first-century Palestinian Jew, anything I can do to find what makes first-century Palestinian Jews tick is part of my 'conservative believer's' theological quest and personal pilgrimage." From: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/31/story_3134_1.html

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.