Yes, as real as hobbits and vulcans. I am willing to accept that.
Even if they have a different unit of measure in a different language, with a different base number of measurement?
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, we seem to be able to work it out with the French, even though they talk funny and measure things differently.
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.
You have yet to make it clear WHAT you’re trying to do. You backpeddal so quickly it’s difficult to keep track.
What the hell???
They’re one and the same, my pet. “Academic culture” does not stand independant from its sole purpose-- the persuit and encouragement of knowledge.
And I’m, so terribly sorry to have dissapointed you!
Political? What the HELL? Dude, are you even listening to yourself?
Probably because you’re just about the only person taking the side of religion as victim. Generally, that’s a tough position.
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.
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.
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.
And how is a raven like a writing desk?
NOW you’re catching on!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are quite right. I should not have used “most unique.” It was technically incorrect. My apologies.
Apples and oranges, anyone?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It doesn’t appear that you’ve been listening.
In the OP neither side was a victim
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.
careful, your slightly superior is showing.
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.
SIGH!!! I know how you feel.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA {deep breath} HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and you called him idealistic!!
I can’t laugh anymore, my sides hurt.
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.
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?
Remarks like the below should not be simply accepted:
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.
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.
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.
Claiming that Lissa should turn the “fact-based lens” on herself, without giving reasons why is an odd thing to say.
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?
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.”
Can you explain what this means? I don’t have a clue what you’re trying to say.
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.
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.
I would gander to say that most open-minded religious people have no problems with academia.
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.
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.
I prefer not to discuss my personal opinions on religious faith.
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.
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.
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.
Yes. It was. I apologize for the snarkiness of my tone. It does no one any good, and is quite unbecomming.
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.
Again, I apologize for my snarkiness. It was uncalled-for.
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.”
Glad I amused you so.
Care to show me where any presidential judicial appointees have made sweeping changes to the system/law?
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.)
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”.
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.
Okay. Seems a shame for you to give up so easily, though, when you’re thoughoughly convinced that I’m wrong.
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.
I know. Isn’t it awesome!!!
Are you really asking for proof that academia and religion are different? I mean, really?
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.
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.
) 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.