I can guess the title of one book that's not on the curriculum in Doug Groothuis's courses: The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, by Mark Noll.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Jeffrey Shallit
Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and
Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and
Recurrent thoughts about mathematics, science, politics, music, religion, and
Recurrent thoughts about ....
-
Jeffrey Shallit
American mathematician, professor of computer science at a major Canadian university, & skeptic.
All comments are moderated to remove spam and duplication. Please be patient; your comment will usually appear within 12 hours.
Recursivity
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(133)
-
▼
December
(13)
- Friday Moose Blogging
- The Evangelical Worldview is Very Fragile
- Canadians are Breathing Easier
- Wrong Mathematics in a Jack Reacher Novel
- John Baird - Hypocrite
- A Christmas Song by My Father
- The Sterility of Intelligent Design
- Should Barbers Have the Right to Refuse Service to...
- Tal Pinchevsky, "Breakway"
- Waterloo Ignorance Day
- Santorum Joins World Net Daily
- My Unremarked Remarks at Eschaton
- Eschaton 2012
-
▼
December
(13)
22 comments:
I can top that:
A founder of an intelligent design movement warns parents that as their sons and daughters head off to college, they may be in danger of undergoing a "faith-ectomy" within the first couple of years of alleged "higher learning."
According to the Discovery Institute's Dr. Stephen Meyer, when Christian students enter college, a majority of them are in danger of losing their faith, as their fragile worldview and Christian upbringing are seriously challenged.
http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2011/09/of-sheep-and-clothing.html
If most colleges were, instead of mostly secular and left-leaning, Christian, and your kid somehow wound up in one of those schools, are you supremely confident that your kid wouldn't be swayed in his thinking?
Stolen Syrup: Are colleges left-leaning? What kind of senseless remark is this?
Supremely confidant, no.
Fairly confidant, yes.
Not lying to kids + teaching them to think before accepting what they're told = adults not likely to be swayed by lies.
Takis, would you like to amend your question after reading this clip from the New York Times?: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html?em&_r=0
"The overwhelmingly liberal tilt of university professors has been explained by everything from outright bias to higher I.Q. scores."
And I'm confidant (err, make that confident) that you have a good answer to my question.
It is interesting that SS produces evidence in favor of the idea that uni/colleges are left-leaning by citing the political leaning of professors. The interesting fact being that this approach parallels arguments that the media has a liberal bias by appealing to the voting habits of journalists. This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8oHl3ooeZo from about minute 3 to 6 dismantles that approach when used for determining media bias. The claim that professor's political leanings determine whether the institution they are apart of is left-leaning or even the weaker claim that the political affliations of profs affect the college product(discoveries/research/books) is going to require evidence other than the political preferences of professors. Takis, I think you can remain safely confident of the senselessness of the original remark.
"It is interesting that SS produces evidence in favor of the idea that uni/colleges are left-leaning by citing the political leaning of professors."
This argument is lacking. Saying the school leans one way or the other is only half the matter. What also matters is how the majority of professors lean. And that is what I really trying to get at in my original post.
So, just pretend my original post said, "If most college professors were, instead of mostly secular and left-leaning, Christian, and your kid somehow wound up in one of those schools, are you supremely confident that your kid wouldn't be swayed in his thinking?
SS, you may want to edit your original statement, though fine with me doesn't change my critique. As I originally wrote: the claim that the political affliations of profs affect the college product(mathematical proofs, books on translating ancient languages etc) will require more evidence. It's simply not enough to assert that how professors lean is important. You have to say why and show that this leaning is causally linked to the college product. For example, take climate scientists, you'd have to find a "liberal" climate scientist who because of their political affliation biases their research product in a systematic way. Then you'd have to show the same for many other climate scientists and then for various other fields, say in history. Furthermore, you could run into some large problems, namely, you could find secular left-leaning historians whose bias is in the other direction. These secular left-leaning historians consistently bias their work in a right-leaning manner. Then you'd have quite a pickle to explain.
It's hard to even take your argument even a little bit seriously. See, Takis, can easily say that what should sway people is what is actually right, and insofar as what secular professors produce corresponds to what is actually right then people should be swayed. Furthermore, christians do claim to be actually right, thus as long as, their kids care about what is actually right then they have little to nothing to worry about. Now maybe you mean to say that kids of christians don't always care about what is right, and hence might be swayed by their secular teachers if they right or wrong. That makes some intuitive sense, but note, the problem isn't the professor's political leanings at all but the indifference on the kids part to what is actually the case.
So you see, I think Takis is right to think of your comment as senseless(even the revised one). It matters not the political leanings of the professors, but what actually is right, whether the professors are free, whether the students are free, and whether students actually care about what is right. If the students don't care about what is right they could to go to a nonsecular or secular school and it wouldn't matter one jot. Indeed, I am reminded of Kurt Wise(a geologist with a phd from harvard) who said and I'm paraphrasing that if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism he would admit it but remain a creationist.
The existence of a single nonbeliever challenges faith-based systems.
It seems the inverse is true, too, John.
" Indeed, I am reminded of Kurt Wise(a geologist with a phd from harvard) who said and I'm paraphrasing that if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism he would admit it but remain a creationist."
Well, you've got PZ Meyers, Michael Shermer, and Anatole France saying the exact same thing, but the opposite.
Well, you've got PZ Meyers, Michael Shermer, and Anatole France saying the exact same thing, but the opposite.
Really, the exact same thing? You mean, it was about evolution? Or was it about the Christian god?
I think it is quite possible to maintain that the concept of the Christian god is so incoherent and self-contradictory that no evidence could prove it. That doesn't mean that no evidence could prove that life on earth was created, in part let's say, by aliens.
SS, your comment makes no sense to me. I wrote this: "if the students don't care about what is right they could to go to a nonsecular or secular school and it wouldn't matter one jot" and then as an example of someone who doesn't care about what is actually right I mentioned Kurt Wise(trained at a secular school) who said if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism he would remain a creationist. I take someone who continues to hold a position that all the evidence in the universe goes against as someone who doesn't care about what is right(one ex. being flat earthers).
Now, you respond by bringing up Myers, Shermer, and France as additional examples of people who don't care about what is right. I don't know much about France or Shermer, but concerning Myers, I've never read him as saying that if all the evidenced turned against a position(here it's unclear whether you mean evolution by natural selection or something else) he held then he would continue to hold it. In fact and pointedly, he repeatedly and somewhat incessantly asks for evidence. Furthermore, I have read him saying that, in general, he would change a position he held if evidence to the contrary was put forth. Perhaps, Shermer and France are more similar to Wise; I can't say. Though even if they were, it would strengthen my point not weaken it.
See, I'm trying to say that if you don't care about what is right then it won't matter whether you go to a secular or nonsecular school. The political leanings of professors is immaterial. If the leanings do matter to evangelicals then I'd say their worldview(wv) may not only be fragile but inaccurate. I think they should ignore the politics and care about what is right. Granted, caring about what is right may lead them to question part or the whole of their wv and this questioning could weaken or strengthen their wv depending on how much what is right corresponds to their wv.
"Really, the exact same thing? "
I could've been clearer about what the issue at hand was. It was the supernatural.
I believe those three men said that there could be no evidence of the supernatural.
"Now, you respond by bringing up Myers, Shermer, and France as additional examples of people who don't care about what is right."
Not exactly. I brought them as examples of those who close the door on a certain type of inquiry.
Let us double check Myers' position. I inferred his position from Coyne's opposite position: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/sean-carroll-on-the-supernatural/
Saying that Shermer's and Frances' position strengthen your point might be true. All I was saying was that the dogmatism can go both ways.
" The political leanings of professors is immaterial. ... I think (the students) should ignore the politics and care about what is right."
If the professors' leanings were truly immaterial, then you wouldn't be recommending what the students "should" do.
I believe those three men said that there could be no evidence of the supernatural.
Which is coherent, if you define "natural" to be "everything in the universe". Then there can be outside the universe and nothing supernatural.
More and more, I think the concepts of "supernatural", "miracle", and "god" are so incoherent as to be essentially meaningless.
Thanks for clearing some things up SS, though your explanation is fine, it doesn't weaken my critique and makes more of a mess of your answer. Concerning Shermer/France, I can't really speak about, but concerning Myers, what you say is not supported by your evidence. Next, you state that your point is that dogmatism can go both ways. Granted, that it can go both ways is a truism yet wholly irrelevant. It does nothing to strengthen your claim that secular and left political leanings are relevant. You have yet to show that the uni product: mathematical proofs, climate change scenarios, etc is biased by the secular/left political leanings of the professors. Furthermore, the evidence you produce(Coyne's position) does not even support the claim that "there could be no evidence of the supernatural(sn)." Indeed, if one looks at the post they will note immediately that it is concerned with what science can find evidence for, NOT that there is no evidence of the sn. Indeed, there are obvious examples: maybe historical inquiry can produce evidence of the sn, maybe philosophical argument can produce evidence. I mean philosophy is chock full of arguments that if were sound would provide evidence in favor of the sn, take Descartes' substance dualism or if there were a sound ontological argument(a tri-omni god would be metaphysically possible that is the possibility of god on whatever evidence that can be produced is non-zero). Now, there no sound ontological arguments(as they have a fallacious form as shown by strong gaunilo type objections) and the same goes for substance dualism. Indeed, one might argue that we shouldn't take philosophical arguments too seriously(weigh them favorably) but that wouldn't undermine that they would have some weight.
Coyne's position is that there can be evidence that science can find in support of the sn. Later on Coyne says that his position departs company with Myers not that Myers takes the opposite position.
However even if you did find that Myers holds the opposite position(that science cannot find evidence in support of the sn), it won't help as it wouldn't show that there is no evidence only none that science can find. You need to read carefully; I wrote that Kurt's position is that if all the evidence in the uni turned against him he would retain his position; I didn't say that he thinks there is no evidence against his position. It's that no amount of evidence can convince him. Saying that science can't find evidence and saying that no amount of evidence can convince you are wholly different. So if Myers said that he doesn't think science can find evidence for the sn, it plainly doesn't mean he thinks that if evidence was found that he wouldn't change his mind. Again, he simply thinks science can't find the evidence.
See, the key point is conceptual not evidential(ie not that there is no evidence). Myers wouldn't be able to conceive of evidence that science could find in order to support supernaturalism. But one can ask if that type of argument would rule out supernaturalism/sn inquiry? Of course not, the conceivability of something is a poor argument even for the standard of logical possibility let alone physical possibility(the type of possibility that science usually deals with). An example from DH Mellor, I think I can conceive of a greatest prime number even though I know and understand the well known proof that there is no such number.
Lastly, you end with a strange conditional. Remember, your position is that the politics of professors is important, and yet you failed to produce any evidence that secular left leaning political affiliations bias systematically say climate science. Thus, one can quite easily dismiss your position as immaterial. Next, one can easily recommend what students should do. The question is whether the recommendation is applicable, supported, wise, or sound etc.
Allow me to comment on your long post bit by bit. More later, if I have time:
"You have yet to show that the uni product: mathematical proofs, climate change scenarios, etc is biased by the secular/left political leanings of the professors."
I would never bother trying to show one's mathematical positions are biased by political leanings. That's just silly. Scientific positions could be, of course, but not usually. Obviously I was referring to classes such as politics, philosophy, and maybe some other types of liberal arts classes.
Concerning Myers, who'd I'd prefer not to spend much time on, I inferred his position from Coyne's site: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/sean-carroll-on-the-supernatural/
" Saying that science can't find evidence and saying that no amount of evidence can convince you are wholly different."
I like your differentiation, but I think "somewhat" fits better than "wholly."
Thanks for the reply SS, though, it adds little. You note that you would find it silly to show mathematical proofs being biased by political leanings. On this point, I'm glad we agree. Though note carefully, it is a direct consequence of the point that was being made by your amended senseless comment that if most profs are secular/left-leaning that then they would sway a student who is christian. Granted your comment was senseless so silliness is to be expected.
Now, there is a hint of progress; it's good that you have now conceded that the quantifier most college professors was inaccurate, grossly in fact. Now you restrict your original statement to college profs who are political scientists, philosophers, and "maybe some other types of liberal arts classes(other)."
You'll probably, if you have the time, produce the substance to back up your amended point in your subsequent posts. The point being that you have to show how secular/left-leaning political scientists/philosophers/other bias their research systematically. To make it clear, political science papers etc are biased in fashion that causally sway a christian student away their religious commitments.
You say that you inferred his position from Coyne's site. That you inferred it is obvious, but the question is is the inference justified? Given the evidence you supplied, a post by Coyne, your inference that Myers holds the opposite position is not justified. I'll quote him this time just to make sure it comes through clearly, now read carefully: "This is where I agree with Sean, the philosopher Maarten Boudry, and, I think, Brother Blackford, and where we part company from P.Z Myers, The Great Decider, Eugenie Scott and the NCSE—and nearly everyone else. At least I (and probably Sean) could envision theoretical cases where we’d see behavior as sporadic and lawless—and provisionally indicative of a god. Others would not." So Coyne is saying that he thinks science can find evidence of sn-ism and that Myers departs from that ie does not hold to that. So your inference that Myers holds there could be no evidence of the sn is not justified. All that one can say from the evidence you've provided is that Myers thinks science a priori can't find evidence of sn.
Next, you think that the quantifier "somewhat" is more apt than "wholly." Again, as I've shown above. Saying that science can't find evidence of sn-ism is an a priori statement; it's a conceptual claim ie a claim concerned with the concept of sn-ism, and the concept of evidence, not evidence itself. Saying that there is no evidence of sn is an evidential claim. They are wholly different. Conceptual claims are not somewhat like evidential claims. They are distinct and separate from evidential claims. Again, I think you're misguided.
"your amended senseless comment that if most profs are secular/left-leaning that then they would sway a student who is christian. Granted your comment was senseless so silliness is to be expected."
It's only senseless because you twisted my words. I never said they "would" sway a Christian. What I thought came across clearly was that many Christians and other religious and marginally religious people could be swayed, and I'm sure have been.
The very fact that religious groups have written booklets which are meant to strengthen college students' faith could mean: A)that the religion is fragile (your position), or B) that many religious and marginally religious people have drifted away from their religion because of the persuasive nature of either their professors or the college environment. (my position). If your position is right, mine is right, too. But if mine is right, yours need not be right.
"You'll probably, if you have the time, produce the substance to back up your amended point in your subsequent posts. "
You are forgetting what my claim was, and are claiming that it is bigger than what I set out to do.
I'm sure, "you'll probably, if you have the time" start off with that NYT article link I pasted. Then, I suppose, you can read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/are-colleges-summer-readi_n_601013.html
The whole Myers/Coyne thing is, I'm afraid, a total distraction, and I'd prefer not to pursue that line. If you'd like me to concede your point, I'd concede just to end it.
Thanks for the reply, SS. Taking your claims in reverse order, the Myers/Coyne claim I agree is a distraction, but note it's one that you brought up. Furthermore, I agree that you should concede the point given that your claim was unjustified. Growth of this type is somtimes preferable. Kudos.
Next, I read the NYT link. In fact, my very first comment was about it! Moving on, you bring another up another link. The question is will it support your claim? Sadly though, the link fails to support your claim. Now if one only reads the link, you quickly find that the organization making the claim that summer reading lists are too "left-leaning" is the National Association of Scholars. A quick google search finds this http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/national-association-scholars. A short quote from the page: "NAS was founded to bring together conservatives in academia to fight the 'liberal bias' on college and university campuses and to target multiculturalism and affirmative-action policies." Thus, in support of your claim that there is bias, you produce evidence from an organization that openly declares its' bias(it's dedicated to fighting "liberal bias"). The logic you employ is plainly circular. If one declares that bias is important, that bias negatively affects a proposition, and then uses biased evidence then one opens oneself up to the charge of being a republican pollster during the recent election. The repubs have a bias and felt bias was skewing polls and to refute these polls they produced biased internal polls. It turns out that there was a problem using biased internal polls to demonstrate bias. Moving on, if your standards of evidence are in fact this low then your original claim is probably completely doomed. To be explicit, if one endorses a low standard of evidence for evidence in favor of a proposition then one can easily argue that evidence against that proposition should have the same low standard of evidence.
Now, I reject that low standard of evidence. I think that one should at least try to look at the research, the real, published research. As you might have guessed by this point, I've at least read enough to know that the claim you put forth that students would be swayed is bogus. Takis was indeed correct from the outset. Let me direct you to Kemmelmeier, M., Danielson, C., & Basten, J. (2005). What’s in a grade? Academic success and political orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 31, 1386-1399. and Mariani, M. D. & Hewitt, G. J. (2008). Indoctrination U.? Faculty ideology and changes in student political orientation. PS: Political Science and Politics, 41(4) just to get cursory start(funnily enough, there's a lot of actual research on ideology and it's perceived role; I mean it's almost as if one could learn about this if they did a minimal amount of research). The second paper is more relevant to your claim. One of their conclusions showed that their study participants became more liberal during college but at rates similar to the US pop. that didn't go to college(and as you might have already guessed there is research concerning ideology and student religious orientation but you've probably already found it and read it). I suppose someone foolish might conclude that profs are somehow(most likely magically) affecting non-college US citizens too.
I'll deal with your first claim in the next post.
To start, you say I twisted your words. Let me say that while I dislike ignorance(i'm ignorant of many things), I won't attack it, but I will attack mendacity. Luckily, this is in print, here is what you said: "It's only senseless because you twisted my words. I never said they 'would' sway a Christian. What I thought came across clearly was that many Christians and other religious and marginally religious people could be swayed, and I'm sure have been." Do you even think before you type, let alone read what you type? Here is your first comment: "If most colleges were, instead of mostly secular and left-leaning, Christian, and your kid somehow wound up in one of those schools, are you supremely confident that your kid wouldn't be swayed in his thinking?" You asked whether they would not be swayed. Thus, I didn't twist your words. Instead, I accurately quoted you.
Next, that you want to amend your statement a third time is just more evidence as to the emptiness of your original claim. So, let us now turn to the newest formulation you put forth, that many christian/religious/marginally religious people(crmrp) could be swayed by a left-leaning prof. First note that this amendment doesn't help your claim one jot. The same criticism holds; you have to produce evidence that many crmrp were swayed by left-leaning profs, that the swaying was because of the left-leaning of the profs only, and that the swaying was in the left-leaning direction. Yet again, your evidence in favor of your new claim is precisely zero.
Moving on, you give 2 reasons for the production of booklets. Let's begin by avoiding a false dichotomy and just note that these are not exhaustive reasons. Next, you say that my position is that they produce booklets because their religion is fragile. Once again, your claim is false. Let's us, once again, return to what I wrote concerning fragility: "The political leanings of professors is immaterial. If the leanings do matter to evangelicals then I'd say their worldview(wv) may not only be fragile but inaccurate." This conditional does NOT mean their religion is fragile. It means that the evangelical worldview is fragile and inaccurate if they think the political leanings of profs are relevant. As I've shown with published research, the politics is not material. Their worldview is fragile and inaccurate only if they believe politics is relevant. Note, this doesn't mean that evangelical religion is wrong , just that they should discharge the baseless idea that political leanings are important in swaying students if evangelicals believe it. In sum, your claim that many crmrp have drifted away from their religion because of the persuasive nature of either their professors is once again unsubstaniated but false as demonstrated by what one can find in the published literature.
Finally, you added a disjunction(now totaling, by my count, four revisions, perhaps you'll go for five) "or college environment" to the third revision(ie. that many crmrp could be swayed by their college profs political leanings). Note that once again, you provide zero evidence in support of this disjunction(by now we shouldn't be surprised) and contradicted your second revision where you wanted to restrict your original post to "most college professors." In sum, your claims are both unsubstantiated and false given the evidence one can find in the literature.
Yes, the evangengical worldview is indeed fragile. Why? That's because Christians are trying to raise their kids to be fine crystal glasses, whereas secularists are trying to raise their kids to be fine wooden goblets. (I hope you'll interpret this metaphorical language charitably.)
Post a Comment