Academic disdain for religion, specifically for Christianity, is noteworthy, and it has unfortunate consequences.

This claim implies that christianity gets the worst of it, and while I don't know if that's so, the claim doesn't stipulate it, so I agree.

I often think that the bad result is that people tend to listen to charismatic and misled religious persons, and ignore the factually accurate, but socially maladjusted scientists or intellectuals.

It does have unfortunate consequences. Of course, it also has incredibly good consequences.

But a dialogue is necessary. Not with people like you, of course, because you don't seem to be able to talk about anything other than your religious beliefs, and don't seem to pay any attention to reality or other people's comments.

But a dialogue is needed with reasonable Christians. There are many reasonable Christians. And people need to be decent to them, and they need to reign in the dangerous loony Christians.

I don't know what you're trying to do, but I think you're trying to make people hate Christians by presenting yourself as a Christian and an awful person. I think that's bad. I think there are good Christians, and you shouldn't increase the hatred people have toward them. Fortunately, I don't judge all Christians based on your actions.

"But a dialogue is necessary. Not with people like you, of course, because you don't seem to be able to talk about anything other than your religious beliefs, and don't seem to pay any attention to reality or other people's comments."

With such warm, welcoming, and really openminded attempt to create dialogue, it's a wonder that people get put off by someone of your opinions.

I mean, seriously, could you have tried to make your claim more condescending, moralistic, sanctimonius, or insulting. The guy is posting claims, and articles discussing them. His articles are from dubious sources, and I don't agree with his points, but the way you act as if you are categorically better than he is seems beyond the pale.

Sometimes I wonder if you're just on JYTE to troll for flame wars. The irony here is that you'll probably do the same to me, but it doesn't bother me, because dialogue is necessary, but not with people like you, of course, because you don't seem to be able to talk about anything other than your beliefs, and don't seem to pay any attention to reality or other people's comments where they don't support your worldview.

Physician, heal thyself.

If you want to study faith, within the context of a faith, there are all sorts of wonderful seminaries and religious colleges you can attend. More power to you, then.

I believe that the purpose of a secular education is to study these issues - and, ideally, every issue - from a perspective as neutral and universally challenging as human psychology and bureaucracy can devise. Through this means - the free exchange and challenge of ideas - we may most freely find our own paths to truth, while hopefully finding a sense of tolerance and understanding for those who have differing perspectives.

While this man you cite has some interesting ideas, I do not find his arguments that "Madison was wrong" to be persuasive in the least - and he takes the above quote nearly as a given.

CobraBaghdad, I have commented to numerous of his claims with points. I don't recall him ever directly addressing any of them. Thus, communication with him is impossible. At this point, I'm basically commenting to the people other than him who read the comments. And I want them to understand that:

a) It's impossible to communicate with him (they're welcome to try, but knowing someone else has found this to be the case may be useful to them)

b) there are Christians who aren't like him

and

c) A dialogue with reasonable Christians is a good idea

I really do think he is giving Christians a bad name. I do wonder if he's doing that because he is Christian or because he hates Christians.

He might also just be trying to increase his number of claims right now. It's one of the most obvious things to do when you first get on JYTE. I think that the assignment of a reason for behaviors that you're really only seeing the edge of isn't fair.

I'm sure I could come up with some other guesses as to why he hasn't replied to your comments if I spent more than 45 seconds thinking about it.

Sure, and all of them involve not caring about actually having a dialogue. He's clearly online; yet he ignores what people say.

Until he shows me a reason to respect him, that is enough for me to have lost hte basic respect he started out with.

I'll change my opinion when I have evidence to change it.

However, he's not talkable to, and thus we shouldn't be having a dialogue with people like him. It's just two monologues.

I have to say that, if I held any, I would not be inclined to discuss my deeply held religious beliefs on jyte. There are a number of us here who take pleasure in tearing apart arguments, and insist fervently that logic is the basis for argument. But the basis for deeply held religious beliefs is not logic but faith, and discussing those beliefs with people who insist on challenging them requires a great deal of courage.

To be fair, Jim has posted at least one reasonable comment in response to my arguments. I do maintain that he relies too heavily on appeals to authority in his claims - and that the authorities he references are not qualified to make unimpeachable statements to that effect. However, he responded to the claim that his sources were too overtly xian apologists by sourcing better - which shows both reason and an intent to meaningfully communicate with his audience.

Thus, while I hold that many of his arguments are spurious or overwrought, I cannot extend that to saying he's really any worse than the rest of the Jyte community. He's a far, far cry from the kind of pro (or anti) xian trolls which frequent many boards. And, at least, he inputs claims which involve some depth of thinking and aren't just pop culture references and technical jargon.

Rorek, I totally agree. I have no desire to discuss my religious beliefs in any depth here. That is why I don't make claims about religion unless I am willing to discuss those aspects that relate to the claim. I think by making claims about it, he has opened up the discussion himself. People who make claims and never reply to comments do not interest me, and more importantly, cannot be talked to, since they do not talk back - which is my point.

Xavier, that's good to know. As I said, if I see signs of real communication from him, I may change my views. But I haven't, and until then, I don't think talking to him is possible.

I agree, but I think it may be for the best in the end. While I'm Christian, and I wish I could bring such views into a scientific workplace, the result would not be good. If you let one religion in, you must let all religions in (lest you infringe on freedom of religion). You'd have Pastafarians influencing education alongside muslims, Christians, and those who believe in "The Great Spoon". Now, I would also argue that there is a prevalence of Atheistic thought in academia, and to be fair it should be removed too. Ideally, public education should be as neutral as possible, getting religious education from home and church.

Are we familiar with the term "arguing the question"?

Do you expect us to address the "unfortunate consequences" part while just taking for granted that a resistance to adopting "Intelligent Design" in classrooms can be explained ONLY by a disdain for religion?

Arguing the question is a childish logical falicy employed by childish people on the national stage.

Bligh, if the debate against intelligent design was on purely scientific grounds, they would just do away with the notion of including it and move on. By the very way it's being handled, it's somewhat obvious that disdain of religion is a very key point in the whole debate.

You know, he that doth protest too much, etc.

I think academics would have less disdain for religion if religions would stop having disdain for education and intelligence.

Not all do, of course, but since many very loud ones do, it makes it hard for academics to respect them.

". . . if the debate against intelligent design was on purely scientific grounds, they would just do away with the notion of including it and move on."

Oh, WOULD they . . . so let me get this straight; your conclusion is based on an innacurate presumption of how an extremely vast and diverse community, to which you don't belong, would react to a different hypothetical situation?

If that logic works for you, then I believe we're done here.

Bligh:

You asked, "Are we familiar with the term 'arguing the question'?"

To answer your question, no I am not.

Please enlighten me.

Also, what would be an example of an adult logical fallacy?

Do adults arguing on the national stage ever use adult logical fallacies?

Here, it's referred to as "Begging the question."
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#begging

I didn't say that there are adult logical fallacies; your confusion probably stems from my use of the word 'childish', meaning LIKE (though not necessarily of) a child.

And I describe "Arguing/Begging the question" as childish because it smacks of emotional tantrum.

Bligh:

Please point in the claim or the comments specifically where "Begging the question" was used inappropriately.

I know you did not say there are adult logical fallacies. I was only asking for an example of an adult logical fallacy.

I also asked if adults ever use adult logical fallacies while arguing on the national stage.

Who were you accusing was being childish and smacking of emotional tantrums?

"Bligh:

You asked, "Are we familiar with the term 'arguing the question'?"

To answer your question, no I am not.

Please enlighten me."

1) Was that sarcasm? I answered your question anyway.

2) I've no idea why you suspect I can furnish you with an example of an "adult logical fallacy" as I never used such a silly term.

3) Do adults use logical fallacies? Yes, the "childish people" I refer to 7 comments ago are presumably adults.

4) If you read carefully (or not even), I don't accuse any person of smacking of emotional tantrum, but the argument. You, personally, are better than that Jim.

David, you've got it exactly backwards. Much as the claim does, see also the raison d'etre of Christian Fundamentalism.

ID is a political movement, not a scientific one. For a while, scientists did dismiss it on purely scientific grounds[1], assuming that people could not possibly be stupid enough to believe a political organization about science when no reputable biologist would take it seriously.

But the anti-science fringe would not stop trying to force their religion on others while pretending to scientific legitimacy. And so there's a backlash against the political ID movement by scientists who are largely baffled by how anyone could believe the shills. And who are pissed off that they have to waste their time on this crap when they could be doing science.

There is no scientific debate. Period. There's a political attempt by Fundamentalists[2] to make schools teach their religion. ID is not a theory, it is a tactic.

D'A

[1]: To wit, "If it's not falsifiable, it is not a theory."

[2]: Another political movement with explicitly anti-science aims.

Bligh:

No, I was not being sarcastic.

The definition you pointed me to didn't help me enough. I was hoping you could point me to the actual example so I could get a better idea of the fallacy.

As you probably realize, the quote in this claim came from a speech given by the then acting and former President of Cornell University.

Now, I am trying to figure out what you know that Rawlings seems to be ignorant.

I've already explained how your claim argues the question that resistance to ID represents an academic disdain for religion.

Fallacious logic lesson #2 (this page has been a great resource, I've added it to my bookmarks):

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#genetic
You commit what's called a "fallacy of virtue" in your argument when you suggest that, because the man has represented Cornell University, his opinion is beyond reproach by the rest of us non-ivy league presidents, or lowly graphic designers for that matter.

Bligh:

Thank you for Fallacious Logic Lesson # 2. That one I think I understand.

I must be dense. I am still unclear on the first lesson.

"Oh, WOULD they . . . so let me get this straight; your conclusion is based on an innacurate presumption of how an extremely vast and diverse community, to which you don't belong, would react to a different hypothetical situation?"

Your conclusion is that I do NOT belong to such a community? You would be mistaken; I don't believe ID should be taught in schools. I'm not a PhD, but I'm well invested in the scientific and academic communities, because I'm not stupid.

Your argument proves my point, somewhat. If my hypothetical situation is NOT true, and academia just cannot discard it and ignore it, then the only realistic option is disdain for actual religion. I've been involved with both sides of the debate enough to know where most people stand. Most scientists and engineers I know just shrug it off and leave it for time to degrade properly, ready to give a good reason when asked. Some take it as a fight and actively pursue debate against ID. He that doth protest too much...

Either way, I'm comfortable in stating that academia does largely have disdain for religion. I experience this firsthand. People are more than willing to listen to what I have to say until they discover I believe in God, and then I get shrugged off. Even you did it. ID isn't the only place disdain is happening, it's been a trend partially due to the liberal nature of education, that looks on religious folk as either stupid or less evolved. I'm friends with enough Christians in the same situation that it's just absurd to make a claim that academic disdain for religion does not exist.

D'Archangel, you did it too. I never said it was a scientific debate. I never said scientists didn't already just try ignoring it. I said that continual protesting about it is making them look like they have more than scientific qualms about it.

For the record and clarity, I don't believe ID should be taught in schools, I do believe in creation/design, and I do believe and have experienced disdain for religion and religious people coming from both academia at-large and academics themselves.

"I do believe and have experienced disdain for religion and religious people coming from both academia at-large and academics themselves."

Is that comparable to the disdain for science and the scientific community which it would seem you are displaying?

XavierAM, I do not read any disdain for academia in any of these comments.

I think the reason behind academic disdain for religion is that for many religious people, the rules of debate are different than they are for most academics. It is frustrating and often pointless to enter into a debate with someone when you do not agree on the ground rules.

Well said!

"Do you expect us to address the "unfortunate consequences" part while just taking for granted that a resistance to adopting "Intelligent Design" in classrooms can be explained ONLY by a disdain for religion?"

Please tell me how a disdain for religion - even if it were true - has any basis in the argument against ID. The proponents at Discovery Institute will tell you that ID is most definitely not religious, but is a purely scientific argument about the origins and development of life on Earth. Virtually the entire strategy of the Defense in Kitzmiller et. al. v Dover was to argue that ID is not the slightest bit religious.

So you can't have it both ways. You cannot argue that ID is not religious, but at the same time claim that ID is being rejected because of a disdain for religion.

In any event, ID is not simply bad science. It is simply not science. Science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. ID, by invoking a 'designer' outside of the laws of nature, is supernatural.

Science is not anti-religious. In fact, it can make no claims either way about the existence of G_d. Science can neither prove that G_d exists nor prove that he/she/it doesn't.

Science is not anti-religious, but ID is anti-science. ID says: "This construct (bacterial flagellum, blood clotting cascade, the eye, you name it) is so complex, we can't figure out how it was put together. Not only can't we figure it out, but no-one will ever be able to figure it out. Since no-one will ever know how it was done, the only conclusion is that it was designed." That is not a claim that is scientific, or that promotes scientific study. It tells scientists - and worse, students - that they can just stop looking for answers, because they will never find them. That is not a message I want my kids to learn.

"Is that comparable to the disdain for science and the scientific community which it would seem you are displaying?"

WTF Xavier? I'm PART of the scientific community and am a scientist by nature. I experiment almost every day. I work for a company that does nuclear R&D, we build new equipment to solve real-world scientific problems. Granted, now I'm more of a programmer, but my roots are in nuclear physics. I don't have disdain for the scientific community, I have disdain for the people that automatically assume that because I'm a Christian, I can't possibly have scientific knowledge and am probably stupid.

Seriously, you people claim Christians are ignorant...

Being part of a community doesn't mean you can't have disdain for it. For example, have you seen my Goth cred?

For one thing, I consider a belief in Creation / Design which is in opposition to our multi-billion year old planet and process of evolution (nuancing that it /is/ possible to believe in both) to be showing a disdain for science.

You take the notion that academia is constantly fighting against ID as evidence that it has disdain for religion. I find this to be unjust, children in many districts are already getting distorted and absurd instruction because of the political pressure of religious parents. Your only evidence, it seems, is "he who doth protest too much."

But still, I think any blanket assumption that a group of people is stupid is cruel and unwarranted. My best friend is a devout Catholic, considering seminary, a real smart guy - and he doesn't tell a lot of people about his faith, lest they pre-judge him.

OTOH, I don't tell most people about my beliefs, because they end up thinking that I'm feckless, heartless and amoral. Makes a career of public service difficult, eh?

Luke:

I can accept (but not necessarily agree with you) that the person who made the claim is stupid, but I fail to see how the claim is stupid.

If you are predisposed, I encourage you to read the

speech

that inspired this claim.

It's pathetic when children point at each other and say "he started it!" It's even worse when grown men do it.