# Intellectual Discrimination and Religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111 "2005-03-31T20:55:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/81 "2005-04-06T10:42:21Z")
> [@NattoGuy](#): > > In this light I guess I can truly say that I “react” to your spiritual beliefs, but it is only fair to inform you that I also “reacted” in the same way to “The Lord Of The Rings” and “Star Trek.” Thus, you have proven that your spiritual beliefs are just as real as hobbits and vulcans. I won’t argue against that. Yes, as real as hobbits and vulcans. I am willing to accept that. > [@](#): > > If these objects are not in the same universe, this comparison is null. If they are in the same universe and have appropriate equipment, both observers will be able to give the same description of both objects. This is a completely objective scenario. Even if they have a different unit of measure in a different language, with a different base number of measurement? > [@](#): > > You could make this scenario subjective if you allowed the observers to communicate but did not allow them to make measurements and compare notes. They would find themselves unable to prove anything except that they both exist and they both claim to have a particular experience. Sounds a lot like religion, no? Your god is very real to you, but it can’t be measured or detected by both of us, so it cannot be made real to me. That doesn’t mean it isn’t real, but it does mean that your god controls nothing in my word except for you. And if I avoid you, then basically your god doesn’t exist for me. I would argue that anything you detect is proof of my God. If you avoid me but interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who I interact with, then you are still still affected by my spirituality. Erek ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/82 "2005-04-06T13:43:45Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Even if they have a different unit of measure in a different language, with a different base number of measurement? Well, we seem to be able to work it out with the French, even though they talk funny and measure things differently. > [@](#): > > I would argue that anything you detect is proof of my God. If you avoid me but interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who interact with people who I interact with, then you are still still affected by my spirituality. Well again… regardless of whether my contact with you is direct and indirect, my reaction governed only by your actions… not by whatever concepts you believe in. It really doesn’t matter if ten thousand people believe that their lives are governed by the power of the invisible pink unicorn… ultimately my reaction is to the people who believe it, not to the unicorn itself. And yes, ideas can take a life of their own, but that only means they’ve created a reality and been communicated to the rest of us. There is, and so far never has been, any proof that this reality conceived by religion ever existed independently of those who believed it. If god puts up a neon sign in the sky saying “I’m here”, and I’m not the only one who can see it, sign me up as a believer. Until then… nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/83 "2005-04-06T13:46:53Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It might help if you stopped arguing with me like I was trying to get creationism taught in textooks, or the ten commandments posted in courthouses. You have yet to make it clear WHAT you’re trying to do. You backpeddal so quickly it’s difficult to keep track. > [@](#): > > You have yet to address the subject of this thread. You have vehemently defended academia when no case was being made against it. What the _hell???_ > [@](#): > > I was merely referring to attitudes in American Academia as a culture, not Academia as the pursuit of the body of knowledge. They’re one and the same, my pet. “Academic culture” does not stand independant from its sole purpose-- the persuit and encouragement of knowledge. > [@](#): > > I am sorry you are completely incapable of addressing the point of this thread. And I’m, so _terribly_ sorry to have dissapointed you! > [@](#): > > I agree. This thread is about mutual respect in a public cultural/political setting. Political? What the _HELL?_ Dude, are you even listening to yourself? > [@](#): > > You claim a hostility from religion toward academia, yet for purposes of this thread, I have only seen a hostility from those who CLAIM to be on the side of academia, toward religion, and not the other way around. Probably because you’re just about the only person taking the side of religion as victim. Generally, that’s a tough position. > [@](#): > > This is completely off-topic and has little to do with the discussion. I am not asking that the rules be bent in any way. Sweetheart, please read this very slowly, a couple times if you have to: Academia and religion are diametric opposites. One depends on facts, one depends on faith. You cannot mix the two. You are asking that religion be a part of academia, or be given consideration in academic debate. That cannot be without academics being diluted or changed. _A statement cannot go unchallenged in academia._ Religion, by nature, is not suited to this sort of inquiry. > [@](#): > > I am trying to examine the way things are going. I wonder why you chose to enter into a philisophical thread, if your only point is that science is superior to philosophy. Oh, my God, you are _adorable!_ This, coming from the poster who said, “This is an academic discussion I repeat this is an academic discussion.” _Now_ it’s a philosohical discussion. You’re making this way too easy. > [@](#): > > Are you going to start through gang signs? Academic Mafia in the (not da) house!!! Represent (not reprazent)!!! No. My membership in the Evil Scientific Conspiracy To Destroy Religion and Denigrate Those Believing In It has lapsed. I found out I was wrong about the collection plate. > [@](#): > > As for which is superior science of philosophy, I have to ask you, how many pounds to the gallon does your car get? Don’t you think a kilometer is an interminably long time to wait for the doctor to see you? And how is a raven like a writing desk? > [@](#): > > The truth cannot change, NOW you’re catching on! > [@](#): > > Academia is a social grouping, and can change as the body of knowledge changes. Don’t confuse the group that you belong to with it’s pursuit. No one is asking for the standards to change. Yes, you are. You are asking for religious views/philospohy to be respected in an academic setting. (Or, at least, that’s what you were asking at first . . . have you changed it?) That cannot happen because of the fundamental differing natures of academia and religion. > [@](#): > > Again, someone can be wrong. You’d be hard pressed to find any one religion that believes things completely the same way internally, let alone apply those things to religion overall. Just because one person is wrong that does not reflect upon anyone else wit But you’re asking that those views be presented and accorded respect in an academic setting. Do you think it’s part of academia to be presented with incorrect facts, and told to sort it out for yourself? > [@](#): > > What is better objectively? The color blue, or Dolphins? I don’t know how to make you understand. Research and philosophy are not as different as blue and dolphins. They are both academic persuits, after all. One can get a degree in Philosophy-- one cannot get a degree in blue. However small-minded you think it, I do believe that research which will benefit mankind is much more valuable than sitting around and waxing philosophical about why the moon is there. Waste your own time on such debates, not class time. > [@](#): > > So people’s votes don’t matter? Their opinion on who should be PRESIDENT or CONGRESSMAN, is irrelevant to the decision making process? In a way-- yes. You’re presented with the choice of candidate A or B, democrat, or republican. (Sometimes you’re given the option of independant, but that’s mostly for show. 😃 ) You may think Tom down at the barbershop would be a great president, but his chances are miniscule-- he’d have better chances of building a workable spaceship in his back yard. Candidates A and B have been carefully selected by both parties. Neither is a radical which will shake up the system-- neither party really wants things to change in a fundamental way. They know that extremism turns off the American public. Candidate A and B differ a little on social issues, just enough to make it interesting, but neither is really that different. Neither is going to make the changes which will make America howl. Candidate B may _say_ he’s pro-life, but he’s not about to try to overturn Roe V. Wade, or even to appoint radical judges who will. Nobody likes a true radical-- they’re too unpredictable. Candidate A may say he’s pro-environment, but he’s not going to make sweeping changes to environmental legislation which may hurt corporations. Both candidates are joined at the hip to their parties-- whatever they do reflects on their party and afects the next election. Thus, a politician always has to be looking out for the team. [qote] Don’t courts don’t make judgements upon opinion polls? What about when a judge sets a precedent and other judges work by that same precedent? [/quote] That’s not even remotely the same thing. I’ll try to explain quickly how the courts work. Judge A makes a decision on a point of law. Unless there is a _flaw_ with his decision, the courts lower than his must abide by it. (Flaws are addressed on appeal). Judge B, his peer, may come to a different conclusion, but unless he sees a legal problem with the ruling, he generally lets it stand. He can, however, make a conflicting ruling, which is then sorted out by the higher courts. However, you must understand that there are judges who have _personal opinions_ which conflict with current law, but who uphold it in _legal opinions._ Meaning that if I were a judge, I might think that a law is wrong, but I know that it passes legal muster, thus I must uphold it. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that a judge’s ruling is objective fact? Ideally, yes. When he/she puts on the robe, he/she ceases to act as an individual and must instead think as an instrument of the law. Judges do not rule based on whether they personally\* like \* or _dislike_ an idea, but whether it is supported by the law. > [@](#): > > What about the President’s OPINION as to who he should appoint to the supreme court? My goodness, you are idealistic, aren’t you? A president does not appoint a judge based on the personal opinions that judge holds, but on his/her judicial record. That does NOT mean the way a judge thinks on certain issues, but whether his/her rulings were Constitutionally sound. Presidents generally choose moderate judges-- not ones with idealistic agendas. (That tends to backfire.) Presidents may talk tough on issues, but a a large part of that is public appeasal. A true radical who would appoint judges based solely on how they will rule on an issue would never get in the position to become president in the first place. Presidents are, above all, politicians. They know how the system works. Might I add that any president who WOULD pick a judge based on how they will rule on certain issues should be dragged out into the street and beaten with the Bible upon which they swore their oath of office. > [@](#): > > Uniqueness doesn’t have a matter of degree. Something is either unique or it is not. You are quite right. I should not have used “most unique.” It was technically incorrect. My apologies. > [@](#): > > I’ll remember there’s no collection plate next time I’m being asked for money for AIDS research. Apples and oranges, anyone? > [@](#): > > Jesus invites skepticism: > > Pr.14:15 > “The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.” > 1 Th.5:21 > “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” Ecclesiastes says there is a time to speak and a time to remain silent. I suggest that in an academic setting, it is the time to remain silent as to one’s religious opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/84 "2005-04-06T15:02:35Z")
I was going to post this yesterday, but I decided it was too simplified for this discussion. Now that I reread it, I see that the fact that science doesn’t require faith needs to be spelled out for the benefit of those who think it does. To get to heaven, I (theoretically) need to rely on books that tell me what I need to do to be a good person. I would have to take it on faith that the books state the correct way to reach heaven, and I will not find I was worshipping the wrong god, but should have been worshipping, say, [Asherah](http://www.american.edu/cas/images/caduceus.gif). However, should I stop trusting in a scientifict theory in the middle of an experiment, I can test the validity of said theory, as many times as necessary. No faith required. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/85 "2005-04-06T17:13:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote:Lissa > If you get people of different faiths in one room, you’ll often end up with some of those people trying to convince others that their faith is bunk and they’ll fry in hell if they don’t switch over to the “right” religion. For the love of Pete, you see this between Christian groups, who worship the same God, in basically the same way, but have heated disputes about tiny matters of doctrine. > > My town of thirty thousand has almost two hundred churches. I kid you not. New churches spring up overnight like mushrooms. A great portion of them have congregations of about thirty people. Whence this phenomenon? A fight within the congregation of an already established church over an amazingly tiny detail. The church splits, with each side forming a new congregation. > > So, in the light of this, I ask you, how the blue hell is academia supposed to draw religious groups together toward common progress, when religious groups cannot even get along amongst themselves? Despite mswas’ heartwarming stories of all faiths coming together in a room to bask in the light from one another’s eyes, there is little real solidarity between the faiths. How can there be when the members of each particular group are certain that they are the only ones who’ve got it “right” and everyone else is gonna burn? > > Yes, yes, I know there are enlightened folks out there who no longer go in for the hellfire-and-brimstone approach, but there are a good many who do. What do we do about them? It seems unpopular to stick to the OP but I’m going to try anyhow. You’re correct there are many things that can seperate us. Certain religous groups contend with one another over doctrine. I understand that their can be some fairly egotistical disagreements in the academic world. Welcome to humanity. I liked MSWAS heartwarming story and the later description of it as the unity exoerience. I’ve had the experience in the musical arena as well as the spiritual. You can make fun of it if you like but that moment whan the barriers fall down and we realize we are indeed in this together DESPITE our differences, is a beautiful thing. You told two stories about stubborn closed minded people and made references to prejudice and hostility in the religious community. That does indeed exist and it aggrivates the crap out of me. They are only part of the spiritual community. The point is for the academic world and the more open minded religious folks to work together for social advance. You say its not possible. I say, if we can’t accomplish respectful communication and cooperation then we hand the reigns over to the very people you rail against. > [@](#): > > Quote: > You ask for the impossible. Those “feelings” are not one-size-fits-all. Trying to adapt to please everyone would be completely unachievable, and, in my opinion, a waste of time. I repeat that if some people in the religious community are hostile to academia, too bad for them. Holy smokes…who is talking about pleaseing everyone. In case you missed it, the people you’re discussing things with are not the close minded fools you seem to have such disdain for. It’s not about agreeing on everything. It’s about focusing on what we do agree on and useing respectful communication to overcome our differences. Perhaps folks like your husband who reside in both arenas can help. > [@](#): > > Quote: > Let me give you another personal experience antecdote about religion and academia. Yeah! cute story. Your husband was correct to fail her. I read an article about a math teacher who was fired for preaching Jesus in very class. They were right to fire him. I’m sure they enjoyed the feelings of martyrdom. Those are the very people we want to work against. > [@](#): > > Quote: > So, until you can get all faiths to agree on what is the proper balance-- what is the spiritual path which academics should respect, this conversation is essential moot. How can academia ever hope to work together with myriad groups which cannot even get along amongst themselves? I don’t expect people to consistantly agree, academic or religious. Respectful communication with a little contention can result in forward movement. I’m not asking asking academia to work with every religous group. There are groups like the sojourners who directly oppose the religious right. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect people who follow a spiritual path to leave their beliefs at home when attending some public activity or political rally. I wouldn’t tolerate them preaching “Jesus is the way” to everyone but there’s also no need to cringe at the mention of God in a public forum. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/86 "2005-04-06T17:45:04Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Marley23](#): > > Theories derived by scientific inquiry contradict some specific teachings of various religions, that’s why there’s a conflict. Many people are not satisfied by your idea that science describes the world; they feel religious texts describe it exactly. True, there are conflicts with some religious beliefs and science. For me it’s all part of seeking truth, which is where science and the spiritual quest come together. True spirituality is never threatened by the truth, just as true science is not. Accepting a popular scientific theory as the truth kinda goes against the meaning of the word theory doesn’t it? > [@](#): > > That’s arrogant? It’s common sense, and it’s not exactly a leap in logic since psychics generally use the same couple of tricks. Find me one that doesn’t. > I think common sense indicates that it probably isn’t true. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that, for example, psychics are for real. I think a lot of people who believe in the supernatural are very offended by this idea that science does not accept their beliefs just because they believe them, that they have to meet a standard of proof. Is that what you call common sense? Too bad. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/87 "2005-04-06T18:14:03Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Lissa](#): > > As I have said, some people have a hostility toward academia for its very nature. I don’t feel that this prejudice is the fault of academia. Academia is not opposed to religion-- it is merely _seperate_ from it. Yes, there are those who cannot seperate their faith from the practical aspects of life-- but they’ll tend to have problems wherever they go, not just in academia. > > There are rules to be followed in academia. Instead of insisting that all people follow the rules, you are asking that the rules be bent for certain people. Isn’t that unfair to others? Should a flat-earther be accorded special consideration in geology classes because of his beliefs? The OP was not about the people who are only in the academic field. It’s about areas that spiritual people and academic people and those who are both, share interests. You have a problem with people who follow a set of religious rules trying to force their rules on others. So do I. I have an equal problem with academics who think the world would be so much better off if only the religious fools listened to them. You’re not one of those are you? > [@](#): > > Desire is irrelevant. Academia cannot change to embrace the ephemeral nature of religious beliefs as relevant to academic discussion and still retain its integrity. There can be no “compromise” of academic standards or principles. see earlier post, academic as an adjective means theoretical or speculative. The OP was about community where academics and believers share the responsibilities of citizenship. > [@](#): > > What matters is the law and the Constitution, and despite recent protests to the contrary, courts do not make judgements based on opinion polls. Which are both man made. As we see in recent history these things can be changed. Thats exactly why liberal academics and liberal believers need to communicate. As to opinions being worthless. We make judgement calls aboout our lives and the lives of others everyday based on opinions. It may not be scientific but it is a basic requirement of being human. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/88 "2005-04-06T18:42:39Z")
I was going to respond to some stuff last night, but the hamsters decided to discriminate against me. At this point I don’t even know what **mswas** is arguing. It seems that some undefined academics are saying some undefined nasty things about either religion or spirituality, the definition of which I still don’t get. So, I’ll limit myself to correcting some misstatements. > [@mswas](#): > > It’s like the difference between binary and analog. Binary assumes that something is either/or, whereas analog sees a consistent curve between one and zero. I have news for you - inside computers it doesn’t work like this. Everything is analog. What appears to you as “binary” is an arbitrary cutoff point between a range of voltages defined as a 1 and a range of voltages defined as a 0. This changes as technology reduces voltage. There is a point in between where a value is neither a 1 or a 0. Not to mention that 1 and 0 don’t have all that much meaning in analog anyhow. > [@mswas](#): > > While the laws of gravity and magnetism are objective, that does not mean that the two bodies have the same gravity or magnetism. So the subjective reality is determined by the reference point of Object A or B, and all that is observable from those reference points, it does not however in any way negate the objective properties of Gravity or Magnetism, even though depending upon which point you are standing upon, your experience of the laws of physics will be dramatically different. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The laws of physics are exactly the same no matter where you stand (in the observable universe, at least.) If you are talking about an equation y = x + 5, you get y = 8 for x =3, and y = 12 for x =7, but you are still talking about the same equation. The laws of physics are represented by the equations (what they really are is an interesting philosophical question.) You can derive these equations through experimentation anywhere. I hope that is clear. I think one of your problems is that you don’t really understand science, so we are talking past you to a certain extent. “Believing” in it (and needing to believe indicates a problem by itself) and understanding it are two different things. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/89 "2005-04-06T20:35:05Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Lissa](#): > > They’re one and the same, my pet. “Academic culture” does not stand independant from its sole purpose-- the persuit and encouragement of knowledge. Uh huh. But we don’t live in academic culture. The OP was about an area where people of different views {academic and spiritual} share citizenship responsibilities. > [@](#): > > Political? What the _HELL?_ Dude, are you even listening to yourself? It doesn’t appear that you’ve been listening. > [@](#): > > Probably because you’re just about the only person taking the side of religion as victim. Generally, that’s a tough position. In the OP neither side was a victim > [@](#): > > Sweetheart, please read this very slowly, a couple times if you have to: Academia and religion are diametric opposites. One depends on facts, one depends on faith. You cannot mix the two. You are asking that religion be a part of academia, or be given consideration in academic debate. That cannot be without academics being diluted or changed. How very condescending of you. You happen to be mistaken. The academic {speculative} debate was about communication beween two different groups and possible ways to improve it. You either missed the point or purposely ignored it in order to entertain yourself. > [@](#): > > This, coming from the poster who said, “This is an academic discussion I repeat this is an academic discussion.” > > _Now_ it’s a philosohical discussion. > > You’re making this way too easy. careful, your slightly superior is showing. > [@](#): > > Yes, you are. You are asking for religious views/philospohy to be respected in an academic setting. (Or, at least, that’s what you were asking at first . . . have you changed it?) That cannot happen because of the fundamental differing natures of academia and religion. Once again, you are mistaken. The OP was about people with religious and/or academic views showing each other respect in a social or political setting. As in; How do spiritual liberals and academic liberals work together for social progress? It’s actually in our Declaration of INdependence somewhere near God and our Creator. > [@](#): > > I don’t know how to make you understand. SIGH!!! I know how you feel. > [@](#): > > My goodness, you are idealistic, aren’t you? > > A president does not appoint a judge based on the personal opinions that judge holds, but on his/her judicial record. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA {deep breath} HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and you called him idealistic!! > [@](#): > > Might I add that any president who WOULD pick a judge based on how they will rule on certain issues should be dragged out into the street and beaten with the Bible upon which they swore their oath of office. I can’t laugh anymore, my sides hurt. > [@](#): > > Ecclesiastes says there is a time to speak and a time to remain silent. I suggest that in an academic setting, it is the time to remain silent as to one’s religious opinions. Perhaps, but the OP wasn’t about that. The social and political arena is populated by academics and the religous. In that arena there needs to be discussion, respect , and cooperation for our country to change course. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/90 "2005-04-06T21:58:31Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > I was going to post this yesterday, but I decided it was too simplified for this discussion. Now that I reread it, I see that the fact that science doesn’t require faith needs to be spelled out for the benefit of those who think it does. > > To get to heaven, I (theoretically) need to rely on books that tell me what I need to do to be a good person. I would have to take it on faith that the books state the correct way to reach heaven, and I will not find I was worshipping the wrong god, but should have been worshipping, say, [Asherah](http://www.american.edu/cas/images/caduceus.gif). > > However, should I stop trusting in a scientifict theory in the middle of an experiment, I can test the validity of said theory, as many times as necessary. No faith required. Prove to me scientifically that you exist. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/91 "2005-04-06T22:13:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Wrong, wrong, wrong! The laws of physics are exactly the same no matter where you stand (in the observable universe, at least.) If you are talking about an equation y = x + 5, > you get y = 8 for x =3, and y = 12 for x =7, but you are still talking about the same equation. I never suggested the laws are different, I simply said that the gravitational field of different bodies is different. Or are you suggesting that I would be just as heavy on the moon as Jupiter? The laws may be fixed, but they allow for infinite variation. Lissa: One minute you say philosophy is academic, one minute you say it’s not. Your dogma is getting a little too thick for me, you’re arguing some really strange position that you have clearly harbored resentment over. I’m done arguing with you, because I disagree completely that religion and science are diametrically opposed. Erek NP: Prisoners of the Sun: Are You Scientific Enough? ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/92 "2005-04-06T22:16:40Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Prove to me scientifically that you exist. Why? Philosophically, that is. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/93 "2005-04-06T22:26:44Z")
Remarks like the below should _not_ be simply accepted: > [@](#): > > Sweetheart, please read this very slowly, a couple times if you have to: Academia and religion are diametric opposites. One depends on facts, one depends on faith. You cannot mix the two. I disagree. I have (fortunately) spent very little time in the mongrel discipline of sociology, but I know enough to reject outright such a monolithic view of capital-A Academia. Modern academic culture is composed of a maelstrom of subgroups with conflicting interests, methods, and goals, all fighting over the same pool of resources. If anything, academia should be analyzed as a discourse sustained by competing regimes of truth. I do not think that any sociological researcher or cultural theorist would argue that Academia’s episteme is “fact-based” in any meaningful, objective sense of the word. The idea that there is anything institutionally different between “academia” and “religion” needs to be proven, not merely asserted and repeated. You have a tough case to make, **Lissa**. If you are going to make the claim that academia is somehow fact-based, it would helpful to turn your fact-based lens on yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/94 "2005-04-06T22:34:48Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Remarks like the below should _not_ be simply accepted: > > \ > > I disagree. I have (fortunately) spent very little time in the mongrel discipline of sociology,\ > If you are going to make the claim that academia is somehow fact-based, it would helpful to turn your fact-based lens on yourself. So, let me see if I understand, Maeglin. You have spent a little bit of time in socilogy, a discipline I know errs of the side of, “Everything is right, to the culture it comes from”\*\*\*\*\*, and you think that all academia is like that? Furthermore, you believe it is not possible for someone to propose an idea, if you accuse that person of some unnamed violation of ethics? \*\*\*\*\*A stance I reject outright, due to the existence of all flavors of circumcision. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/95 "2005-04-06T22:44:06Z")
> [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > So, let me see if I understand, Maeglin. You have spent a little bit of time in socilogy, a discipline I know errs of the side of, “Everything is right, to the culture it comes from”\*\*\*\*\*, and you think that all academia is like that? Furthermore, you believe it is not possible for someone to propose an idea, if you accuse that person of some unnamed violation of ethics? > > \*\*\*\*\*A stance I reject outright, due to the existence of all flavors of circumcision. I do not have the slightest idea how you have inferred the above from my stated position, minimal as it was. Nor am I in any position to validate your theories about relativism and sociology. Nor do I understand your position. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/96 "2005-04-06T22:56:33Z")
Instead of my usual “quote and explain”, I’ll simplify it for you. 1.You can not assume what things are like in academia as a whole from sociology. 1. Claiming that Lissa should turn the “fact-based lens” on herself, without giving reasons why is an odd thing to say. 2. It sounds like you are accusing Lissa of lying, and giving no explanations of how, thus not allowing her to defend herself. That’s a not very nice, now is it? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/97 "2005-04-06T22:56:41Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Accepting a popular scientific theory as the truth kinda goes against the meaning of the word theory doesn’t it? Not if you know what theory means in a scientific context. Something you think is true may be revised or scapped, but there’s nothing wrong with saying “to the best of my knowledge, \_\_\_\_\_ is true.” > [@](#): > > Is that what you call common sense? Too bad. Can you explain what this means? I don’t have a clue what you’re trying to say. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/98 "2005-04-07T00:16:18Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I never suggested the laws are different, I simply said that the gravitational field of different bodies is different. Or are you suggesting that I would be just as heavy on the moon as Jupiter? The laws may be fixed, but they allow for infinite variation. Well, that’s true, but also you implied that this variation is an manifestation of subjectivity. But it really isn’t at all, in fact quite the opposite. Listen and learn: What you have stated is that the gravitational acceleration and magnetic field vary according to the _object_. (There’s a reason for these italics, coming later.) I’ll go ahead and add, by way of contrast, they do not vary according to the _subject_. Thus, you have demonstrated that gravitational acceleration and magnetic field are _objective_ properties because they depend only on the _object._ These properties are the same even if they are observed by two different _subjects_, as long as no information is hidden from, or wilfully ignored by, the subjects. Now if one subject chooses to measure the magnetic field with an EMF detector, and the other subject chooses to use litmus paper, of course the results will be different from one another. But this is still objective, because if we are communicating, we understand we are using different measurements. If we agree to use one technique, or even both techniques, we’ll both come up with the same answer. It is still entirely objective. Subjectivity describes characteristics that vary according to the subject who is observing it. The beauty of a painting is subjective because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Likewise, the effects of religion and spirituality are the same because they too depend entirely on the eye of the beholder. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/99 "2005-04-07T00:29:15Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I have (fortunately) spent very little time in the mongrel discipline of sociology, but I know enough to reject outright such a monolithic view of capital-A Academia. Modern academic culture is composed of a maelstrom of subgroups with conflicting interests, methods, and goals, all fighting over the same pool of resources. If anything, academia should be analyzed as a discourse sustained by competing regimes of truth. I do not think that any sociological researcher or cultural theorist would argue that Academia’s episteme is “fact-based” in any meaningful, objective sense of the word. I think you are giving sociology shorter shrift than it really deserves. It is true that they shovel around quite a bit of subjective thought. But generally they do get around to measuring it objectively, although they may bicker about measurement techniques and whether the subject is even worth measuring. It is perfectly possible to measure subjective things in an objective manner… for example, we can make guesses as to why arranged marriage occurs, and then count the instances of arranged marriage, and measure that against our expectations for a given area. Naturally there is a huge margin of potential abuse, but this only reflects on the people doing the science, not upon the science itself. Of course this is a flaw of academia as an institution and a culture, but not of objectivity or the scientific method of discovery. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2005, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111/100 "2005-04-07T01:13:48Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > You told two stories about stubborn closed minded people and made references to prejudice and hostility in the religious community. That does indeed exist and it aggrivates the crap out of me. They are only part of the spiritual community. The point is for the academic world and the more open minded religious folks to work together for social advance. You say its not possible. I say, if we can’t accomplish respectful communication and cooperation then we hand the reigns over to the very people you rail against. I would gander to say that most open-minded religious people have no problems with academia. > [@](#): > > Holy smokes…who is talking about pleaseing everyone. In case you missed it, the people you’re discussing things with are not the close minded fools you seem to have such disdain for. It’s not about agreeing on everything. It’s about focusing on what we do agree on and useing respectful communication to overcome our differences. Perhaps folks like your husband who reside in both arenas can help. As I just said, reasonable, open-minded religious people and academics get along just fine. In fact, I know quite a few religious folks who make their livings as academics. They’re not the ones who are at issue here. Open-minded people rarely have trouble communicating or getting along in most any setting. It’s the close-minded, hostile ones who are anti-inellectual which we’re supposed to be discussing. They are the ones who cannot reconcile their faith with the principles of academia. With them, I think, there can be no “reconcilliation.” They do not want one, unless academia would be willing to undergo drastic changes. > [@](#): > > I don’t expect people to consistantly agree, academic or religious. Respectful communication with a little contention can result in forward movement. I’m not asking asking academia to work with every religous group. There are groups like the sojourners who directly oppose the religious right. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect people who follow a spiritual path to leave their beliefs at home when attending some public activity or political rally. I wouldn’t tolerate them preaching “Jesus is the way” to everyone but there’s also no need to cringe at the mention of God in a public forum. My husband certainly doesn’t cringe at the mention of religion in his class-- provided it’s being discussed as a social force, and not as a litmus against what every social issue must be compared. To the great frustration of some of his students (the type who martyr themselves) he will not discuss moral judgements. He will not give his opinion of which position on a social issue is right or wrong. His position is that such judgements are personal and private, and totally irrelevant to the sociological study of social issues. He’s concerned with Functionalism, Conflict Theory and the like, not with whether Bill thinks abortion should be banned because he believes it’s wrong. > [@](#): > > The OP was not about the people who are only in the academic field. It’s about areas that spiritual people and academic people and those who are both, share interests. You have a problem with people who follow a set of religious rules trying to force their rules on others. So do I. I have an equal problem with academics who think the world would be so much better off if only the religious fools listened to them. You’re not one of those are you? I prefer not to discuss my personal opinions on religious faith. > [@](#): > > Which are both man made. As we see in recent history these things can be changed. Thats exactly why liberal academics and liberal believers need to communicate. Laws may change, but they are still subject to the Constitution, which, to my knowledge, has not changed recently-- and most likely will not. There have been some interesting laws passed recently, but I have a relatively high expectation that a good portion of them will be overturned by the Supreme Court in due time. Despite what some have said recently, it’s not necessarily a good thing for the people to have their own way when it comes to law. Segregation is a perfect example of this. If popular opinion, not the Courts, had ruled in the South fifty years ago, black people would still be drinking from seperate water fountains. > [@](#): > > As to opinions being worthless. We make judgement calls aboout our lives and the lives of others everyday based on opinions. It may not be scientific but it is a basic requirement of being human. Of course. We must make value judgements every day in our lives. My post refered to classroom time-- in which opinions don’t matter. Debate about the facts is always welcome, but simple value statements such as “I think \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ is wrong,” are pointless. > [@](#): > > Uh huh. But we don’t live in academic culture. The OP was about an area where people of different views {academic and spiritual} share citizenship responsibilities. Citizenship responsibilities? What does hostility to academia because of a percieved superiority on the part of academics have to do with citizenship? I can still be a good citizen and hate my neighbor’s guts. Likewise, those who despise all that academia stands for can still be good citizens. We don’t have to get along to do our civic duty. > [@](#): > > How very condescending of you. Yes. It was. I apologize for the snarkiness of my tone. It does no one any good, and is quite unbecomming. > [@](#): > > You happen to be mistaken. The academic {speculative} debate was about communication beween two different groups and possible ways to improve it. You either missed the point or purposely ignored it in order to entertain yourself. I quite understand his point-- but I happen to disagree with it. My position is that: A) If there is hostility on the part of some religious people, it is not the place of academia to change to please them. B) Most religious people have little or no problem with academics, and get along just fine in an academic environment. So must we change to suit a minority who doesn’t really have a legitimate beef in the first place? C) Perhaps instead of blaming academics for having a superiority complex, we should consider the possibility that perhaps some of these people have an inferiority complex. D) Academia’s nature is to challenge and pick apart theories. Religion is not suited to such inquiry. E) Religion does just fine on its own-- why the need to include it where it doesn’t necessarily belong? F) Instructors have enough trouble cramming in all the course material they need to cover without clouding the issues with a lot of philosphical debate which has little or no bearing on the facts. > [@](#): > > careful, your slightly superior is showing Again, I apologize for my snarkiness. It was uncalled-for. > [@](#): > > Once again, you are mistaken. The OP was about people with religious and/or academic views showing each other respect in a social or political setting. As in; How do spiritual liberals and academic liberals work together for social progress? > It’s actually in our Declaration of INdependence somewhere near God and our Creator. I’ve never had trouble in a social situation with having people respect my views. People who do not find themselves passed over the next time the invitations go out, or find that I have sent my regrets when invited to attend one of their gatherings. I have friends from all across the political and academic spectrum, ranging from people who have never graduated from highschool, to PhDs-- people who are ardently religious and people who are equally ardently athiest. All of them get along just fine. They may vehemently disagree, but the conversations always stay polite, and a hell of a lot of fun. But these are all open-minded people. You cannot force someone to become open-minded, nor can you force people to respect the opinions of others. Some people are just jerks. Being academic or religious didn’t make them that way-- life or nature did. Nothing under the sun can change that. You can’t urge cooperation from those kind of people any more than you can draw blood from a stone. The people who are willing to work together already _are_. It’s not like a sensitivity class, or a group Kum-By-Yah will make nasty people become “nice.” > [@](#): > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA {deep breath} HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and you called him idealistic!! > > I can’t laugh anymore, my sides hurt. Glad I amused you so. Care to show me where any presidential judicial appointees have made sweeping changes to the system/law? > [@](#): > > Perhaps, but the OP wasn’t about that. The social and political arena is populated by academics and the religous. In that arena there needs to be discussion, respect , and cooperation for our country to change course. Now who’s being idealistic? 😃 Our country will not change course, despite a million group hugs. Nor can you induce respect, open discussion and cooperation amongst people who do not want it. (That goes for both sides.) > [@mswas](#): > > Lissa: One minute you say philosophy is academic, one minute you say it’s not. No, actually what happened is YOU asked for an academic debate, and then you said it was a philosophical one. Yes, Philosophy is an academic course offered at many universities-- though when it’s just two guys and a case of Budweiser, it’s “philosophy” with a very small “p”. 😃 > [@](#): > > Your dogma is getting a little too thick for me, you’re arguing some really strange position that you have clearly harbored resentment over. Resentment, eh? Wouldn’t that imply that I had to CARE, first? While I may pity anti-intellectuals, I certainly don’t resent them. They do no harm to me, only to themselves. > [@](#): > > I’m done arguing with you, because I disagree completely that religion and science are diametrically opposed. Okay. Seems a shame for you to give up so easily, though, when you’re thoughoughly convinced that I’m wrong. > [@Maeglin](#): > > I disagree. I have (fortunately) spent very little time in the mongrel discipline of sociology, but I know enough to reject outright such a monolithic view of capital-A Academia. Hmm. I never feel myself “fortunate” to escape learning something (even if I don’t agree with it) but to each his own. I don’t think I would call it a mongrel discipline-- a term which I assume was intended to be insulting. However, I do understand some of what you are saying. It’s true that sociology cannot be considered a science, per se, though the methods of research are scientfic. The problem with sociological experiements is that the results can rarely be duplicated exactly because of all of the variables. (Well, you are working with humans, you know.) I would like to point out that I, myself, am not a sociologist. I would have to call in my husband to defend his subject-- he’s certainly more knowledgeable about it than I. It’s most simply described as a set of theories or tools by which to analyze human culture and society. > [@](#): > > Modern academic culture is composed of a maelstrom of subgroups with conflicting interests, methods, and goals, all fighting over the same pool of resources. I know. Isn’t it _awesome!!!_ > [@](#): > > If anything, academia should be analyzed as a discourse sustained by competing regimes of truth. I do not think that any sociological researcher or cultural theorist would argue that Academia’s episteme is “fact-based” in any meaningful, objective sense of the word. The idea that there is anything institutionally different between “academia” and “religion” needs to be proven, not merely asserted and repeated. Are you really asking for proof that academia and religion are different? I mean, _really?_ > [@](#): > > You have a tough case to make, Lissa. Well, if you’re one of those people who insist that science is a religion, then, yes, it will be a tough case to make-- one I actually won’t bother making, actually. Not because I can’t, but because it’s been made over, and over, and over, and over on the SDMB, and frankly, it’s boring. > [@](#): > > If you are going to make the claim that academia is somehow fact-based, it would helpful to turn your fact-based lens on yourself. Thanks. I’ll keep that in mind. **Scott\_plaid** was refering to moral relativism, by the way-- which is a concept which some sociologists hold near and dear, but not all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intellectual-discrimination-and-religion/297111.md?page=6)