Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 03-29-2006, 10:33 PM

SBL:
Michael Fox
http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=490

and reply on the "taboo" subject
http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=503

"Now we can better identify what is not well with biblical scholarship. Composed almost entirely of faith-based researchers on one extreme and "secularists" on the other, the field itself is structurally preconditioned to make heretical insight difficult to generate and secular research nearly impossible. To the non-believing undergraduate who tells me that he or she wants to go into biblical studies, I respond (with Dante and Weber) lasciate ogni speranza. This is not so much because they will encounter discrimination. They might, but if my experiences are representative, they will more frequently be the beneficiaries of the kindness of pious strangers. There is a much more mundane reason for prospective non-theist Biblicists to abandon hope: there are no jobs for them.

Assume for a moment that you are an atheist exegete. Now please follow my instructions. Peruse the listings in Openings. Understand that your unique skills and talents are of no interest to those institutions listed there with the words "Saint" and "Holy" and "Theological" and "Seminary" in their names. This leaves, per year, about two or three advertised posts in biblical studies at religiously un-chartered institutions of higher learning. Apply for those jobs. Get rejected. A few months later learn — preferably while consuming donuts with a colleague — that the position was filled by a graduate of a theological seminary. Realize that those on the search committee who made this choice all graduated from seminaries themselves. Curse the gods."

This is why you won't find me getting a PHD in NT studies, though I seriously want to.

For entertainment purposes:
Alfred Mohler of a S Baptist Sem with low grade apologist twisting
http://crosswalk.com/faith/pastors/1385962.html

Vorkosigan · 03-29-2006, 10:35 PM

I won't be able to reply, unfortunately, as I am busy probably until at least mid-June.

Chris Weimer · 03-29-2006, 11:16 PM

Yeah, Vork, this has been a struggle with me as well. I started off with Classical Languages: Greek and Latin, and thought about moving into Biblical Studies, but now I don't think I will do it. I will remain active in BS, but CL is really the only way for me to go. And besides, if I restrict myself to BS, then I really am at a loss with classical subjects, but if I stick with CL, then I can include BS into my studies.

So for anyone thinking of going into Biblical Studies, go to Classical Studies instead.

Clivedurdle · 03-30-2006, 02:02 AM

Quote:

They continue to ignore the fact that the relation between their own religious commitments and their scholarly subject matter is wont to generate every imaginable conflict of intellectual interest

(2nd link above)

Quote:

All scholarship is based in some faith and deeply grounded in some set of presuppositions. For the vast majority of those engaged in academia today, that faith is some form of ideological secularism. Christian scholars should always be absolutely transparent and clear about their confessional commitments. As a matter of fact, this should be an absolute requirement of their confessional institutions. At the same time, we should never allow that those who hold alternative worldviews are any less ideologically or intellectually committed. The radical nature of Professor Fox's proposal indicates just how committed he is to his own faith--and how blind he is to his own faith-based perspective.

(3rd link)

I found inadvertently that I had a serious misunderstanding of conflict of interest - I thought if I was open about it that would enable me to continue with the proposed course of action, as the Baptist guy above is asserting.

Wrong.

It actually disqualifies you from being involved!!

If naturalist views are faith based I would much rather use them on the pragmatic grounds of their success! Mapping DNA, understanding of Bacteria, getting rid of smallpox, going to the moon.

But I thought naturalism was evidence based....

seebs · 03-30-2006, 02:11 AM

I'd tend to think this would be a hard field to make a living at without "selling out" to some extent... It says a lot about the field that newspapers can cite LaHaye as a "biblical scholar" without giggling.

Chris Weimer · 03-30-2006, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seebs

I'd tend to think this would be a hard field to make a living at without "selling out" to some extent... It says a lot about the field that newspapers can cite LaHaye as a "biblical scholar" without giggling.

Or puking.

Clivedurdle · 03-30-2006, 02:17 AM

Quote:

A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, a politician, or an executive or director of a corporation, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. Even if there is no evidence of improper actions, a conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the ability of that person to act properly.
In the legal profession, the duty of loyalty owed to a client is generally supposed to preclude an attorney (or a law firm) from representing persons with interests adverse to those of the client. As perhaps the most common example encountered by the general public, the same firm will not represent both parties in a divorce case.
More generally, conflict of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit.
Having a conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interest can, however, become a legal matter if an individual tries to (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision, for personal benefit.
There often is confusion over these two situations. Someone accused of a conflict of interest may deny that a conflict exists because he/she did not act improperly. In fact, a conflict of interest does exist even if there are no improper acts as a result of it. (One way to understand this is to use the term "conflict of roles". A person with two roles - an individual who owns stock and is also a government official, for example - may experience situations where those two roles conflict. The conflict can be mitigated - see below - but it still exists. In and of itself, having two roles is not illegal, but the differing roles will certainly provide an incentive for improper acts in some circumstances.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

There is a clear conflict of role if someone has a set of religious beliefs and is an academic position studying those beliefs.

Chris Weimer · 03-30-2006, 02:25 AM

I'd definitely be able to make exceptions, Clivedurdle. Not everyone sets out to confirm their beliefs. Ben C. Smith made that much clear on his website, that if he happens to turn away from his religion, then so much better would the truth be. And being a, say, Christian, doesn't necessarily disqualify them from having excellent insight into the New Testament. Caution, yes, but ignorance, no.

Clivedurdle · 03-30-2006, 02:27 AM

Of course the classic tale of conflict of role is the diplomat to the Russian Court who was told by his king and the Tsar that he must wear their hats.

Solution? He wore two hats - but that only moves the problem back one step - which hat should be on top?

seebs · 03-30-2006, 02:53 AM

This would render it essentially impossible for anyone to hold a position in academia related to ethics, because everyone appears to have an opinion on the topic, even if it's "there's no such thing".

To find unbiased observers is beyond reasonable expectation; the best we could hope for is observers who are able and willing to clearly identify their own biases.

I don't know, though. Would anyone argue that someone who holds a given position on the historical facts related to Arthurian legend would have a conflict of interest in studying it? All the academics I know have had opinions about their fields.

The question is whether religious belief necessarily makes people unwilling to reconsider their opinions, and while some beliefs do, others don't. Most of the Christians I know seem unbothered by debates about text criticism, and they generally seem willing to consider new theories...

03-29-2006, 10:33 PM	#1
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Can a Believer be a Bible Scholar? SBL: Michael Fox http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=490 and reply on the "taboo" subject http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=503 "Now we can better identify what is not well with biblical scholarship. Composed almost entirely of faith-based researchers on one extreme and "secularists" on the other, the field itself is structurally preconditioned to make heretical insight difficult to generate and secular research nearly impossible. To the non-believing undergraduate who tells me that he or she wants to go into biblical studies, I respond (with Dante and Weber) lasciate ogni speranza. This is not so much because they will encounter discrimination. They might, but if my experiences are representative, they will more frequently be the beneficiaries of the kindness of pious strangers. There is a much more mundane reason for prospective non-theist Biblicists to abandon hope: there are no jobs for them. Assume for a moment that you are an atheist exegete. Now please follow my instructions. Peruse the listings in Openings. Understand that your unique skills and talents are of no interest to those institutions listed there with the words "Saint" and "Holy" and "Theological" and "Seminary" in their names. This leaves, per year, about two or three advertised posts in biblical studies at religiously un-chartered institutions of higher learning. Apply for those jobs. Get rejected. A few months later learn — preferably while consuming donuts with a colleague — that the position was filled by a graduate of a theological seminary. Realize that those on the search committee who made this choice all graduated from seminaries themselves. Curse the gods." This is why you won't find me getting a PHD in NT studies, though I seriously want to. For entertainment purposes: Alfred Mohler of a S Baptist Sem with low grade apologist twisting http://crosswalk.com/faith/pastors/1385962.html

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

03-29-2006, 10:35 PM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I won't be able to reply, unfortunately, as I am busy probably until at least mid-June.

03-29-2006, 11:16 PM	#3
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Yeah, Vork, this has been a struggle with me as well. I started off with Classical Languages: Greek and Latin, and thought about moving into Biblical Studies, but now I don't think I will do it. I will remain active in BS, but CL is really the only way for me to go. And besides, if I restrict myself to BS, then I really am at a loss with classical subjects, but if I stick with CL, then I can include BS into my studies. So for anyone thinking of going into Biblical Studies, go to Classical Studies instead.

03-30-2006, 02:11 AM	#5
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	I'd tend to think this would be a hard field to make a living at without "selling out" to some extent... It says a lot about the field that newspapers can cite LaHaye as a "biblical scholar" without giggling.

03-30-2006, 02:25 AM	#8
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I'd definitely be able to make exceptions, Clivedurdle. Not everyone sets out to confirm their beliefs. Ben C. Smith made that much clear on his website, that if he happens to turn away from his religion, then so much better would the truth be. And being a, say, Christian, doesn't necessarily disqualify them from having excellent insight into the New Testament. Caution, yes, but ignorance, no.

03-30-2006, 02:27 AM	#9
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Of course the classic tale of conflict of role is the diplomat to the Russian Court who was told by his king and the Tsar that he must wear their hats. Solution? He wore two hats - but that only moves the problem back one step - which hat should be on top?

03-30-2006, 02:53 AM	#10
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	This would render it essentially impossible for anyone to hold a position in academia related to ethics, because everyone appears to have an opinion on the topic, even if it's "there's no such thing". To find unbiased observers is beyond reasonable expectation; the best we could hope for is observers who are able and willing to clearly identify their own biases. I don't know, though. Would anyone argue that someone who holds a given position on the historical facts related to Arthurian legend would have a conflict of interest in studying it? All the academics I know have had opinions about their fields. The question is whether religious belief necessarily makes people unwilling to reconsider their opinions, and while some beliefs do, others don't. Most of the Christians I know seem unbothered by debates about text criticism, and they generally seem willing to consider new theories...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.