Great post and thank you for expanding on the topic, Dave. What was alarming was the apparent anti- intellectual stance of the Christian argument, I couldn't for the life of me figure out why the scientific community would engage them and expend so much time to do that. Rhetorically speaking both sides were engaged in a kind of "whip saw" debate rather than engage in an endeavor to persuade the other . Christians absolutely do not understand the nature of philosophy In general terms, you hit it on the head. Thnx! Ron
> On May 3, 2014, at 12:55 PM, david <[email protected]> wrote: > > Oh, yea. My heart goes out to the poor, embattled, persecuted religious > majority. The atheists are taking over this country, constituting nearly 2% > of the population! Christians hardly have any place left to go. > > From Wikipedia's page on the recent Christian film "God's Not Dead". > "A number of sources have cited the film's similarities to a popular urban > legend. The basic premise of a Christian student debating an atheist > professor and winning in front of the class has been the subject of at least > two popular legends and a popular Chick tract." > > The movie basically acts out this urban legend: A Christian college student > enrolls in a philosophy class taught by an atheist who demands that his > students sign a declaration that "God is dead" to get a passing grade. The > only student in the class to refuse strikes a bargain with the professor: the > Christian student must defend his position that "God's not dead" in a series > of debates with him, with the class members deciding who wins. Just as one > might have already guessed, the Christian freshman beats the philosophy > professor in these debates. > > Critical reception > > The film has been panned by critics, currently holding a score of 16/100 on > Metacritic indicating "Overwhelming Dislike", based on 5 critics, and a 13% > "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes as of April 2014. Writing for The A.V. > Club, Todd VanDerWerff gave the film a D-, saying "Even by the rather lax > standards of the Christian film industry, God's Not Dead is a disaster. It's > an uninspired amble past a variety of Christian-email-forward bogeymen that > feels far too long at just 113 minutes". Reviewer Scott Foundas of Variety > wrote "...even grading on a generous curve, this strident melodrama about the > insidious efforts of America's university system to silence true believers on > campus is about as subtle as a stack of Bibles falling on your head...." > Steve Pulaski of Influx Magazine, however, was less critical of the film, > giving it a C+ and stating "God's Not Dead has issues, many of them easy to > spot and heavily distracting. However, it's surprisingly effective in terms > of message, acting, and insight, which are three fields Christian cinema > seems to struggle with the most". > > Not too long ago I took two courses on the topic, psychology of religion and > philosophy of religion. The first day lecture for the psychology class > impressed me. The professor had been around long enough to know what kind of > shit can hit the fan when Christian students get upset about the challenges > to their faith. She wasn't an atheist, exactly, but there were atheists on > the required reading list. So her first day lecture was all about the > difference between understanding a book and believing a book. You are not > required to believe anything you hear or read, she said, but you are required > to understand it. And she promised that there would be no problem or penalty > for dropping the class. But if you show up for the next class, she told us, > you'll be expected to attend all the classes and to learn all the material. > The philosophy students (different professor) did not need to hear this > lecture. In the class with undergrad Christians there was some screaming, > cussing and weeping but the philosophy classroom was full of laughter and > even a little awe. > > That doesn't prove anything, of course, but that's what I saw. > Also, I'm one of the moderators of a philosophy discussion forum with almost > 8,000 members and the conservative Americans, especially the Christians, are > very easily offended and do not seem to understand the nature of philosophy > or any kind of critical thinking. This is very much part of the collapse of > Democracy, as the quote from Arlo described it. Donald Wood thinks, "all our > cultural institutions are based on the intellectual idea that an enlightened > citizenry could govern its affairs with reason and responsibility", and I > think this is basically what Pirsig was talking about as the shift from > social level Victorian society to a society guided by intellectual values > after WW1. "In the late 20th century, however, we are witnessing the > disintegration of much of our cultural heritage. Wood argues that this is due > to our evolution into a post-intellectual society—a society characterized by > a loss of critical thinking, the substitution of information for knowledge, > mediated reality, increasing illiteracy, loss of privacy, specialization, > psychological isolation, hyper-urbanization, moral anarchy, and political > debilitation." > > > >> From: [email protected] >> Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 09:56:37 -0400 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MD] Post-Intellectualism >> >> I have been spending alittle more time on Facebook since the discuss has >> declined in posts and I see the "evidence" if the de-evolution everywhere. >> For example there had been an raid ode where a bible was banned in a >> classroom, the students were allowed to do some silent reading of what ever >> they wished. A student pulled out the Bible . It was banned on the grounds >> that it may offend other students. There was an immediate shit storm of >> controversy based on >> The place of religion in school. >> What was missed was the outrage it should have caused concerning >> intellectual censorship. >> Another quick example was how on a site dedicated to science mostly >> concerned itself with bashing Christian contributors and mostly combating >> theism, both sides arguing their own conception of truth as absolute and >> irrefutable. >> This has been just a small sample of what seems to be the popular general >> Standing situation in American society and it's a bit worrisome. >> -Ron >> >>> On May 2, 2014, at 8:18 PM, david <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> “I have decided to preach intellectual modesty for the rest of my days. >>> There is a tradition, an enormously strong tradition of intellectual >>> immodesty and irresponsibility. Around the year 1930 I told a joke. I said >>> that many students don't go to university assuming that it is a great >>> empire of knowledge, in the hope to gain some understanding; but that they >>> go to university to learn how to speak in an impressive and >>> incomprehensible way. This is the tradition of intellectualism. At the time >>> I thought it was a joke. But having become a university professor myself, I >>> have perceived with horror that it is a reality. That's the way things are, >>> unfortunately. In universities there is a tradition that legitimizes this >>> attitude, it is the tradition of hegelianism. Especially in Germany, Hegel >>> is extraordinarily admired. People really believe that Hegel was a great >>> philosopher because he used big words. And it is exactly this incredible >>> immodesty that destroys so much in and between intellectuals. I would like >>> to spend my last years fighting against this. I want to start a new >>> fashion. I have always fought against fashions, and I have never followed >>> any fashion, and I have never tried to start one. But I would love to start >>> a new fashion of intellectual modesty, of permanent thought of everything >>> we don't know.“ -- Karl Popper >>> >>> "Hegel had talked like this, with his Absolute Mind. Absolute Mind was >>> independent too, both of objectivity and subjectivity. However, Hegel said >>> the Absolute Mind was the source of everything, but then it excluded >>> romantic experience from the 'everything' it was the source of. Hegel's >>> Absolute was completely classical, completely rational and completely >>> orderly. Quality was not like that." (ZAMM 252) >>> This is consistent with the comments he made 17 years later, where DQ "is >>> not a social code or some intellectualized Hegelian Absolute. It is direct >>> everyday experience." (Lila, 366) >>> >>> Pre-intellectual experience is the key to Pirsig's root expansion of >>> rationality. >>> But a post-intellectual society is the road to totalitarianism and the >>> devolution of human culture. >>> I don't think Ian is post-intellectual so much as anti-intellectual. >>> Politically and socially speaking, there's not much difference. >>> >>> [Ian] >>>> You've had >>>> Post-structuralism. >>>> You've had >>>> Post-Modernism >>>> Thus side of the pond, we've even recently had >>>> Post-Christian >>>> What about >>>> Post-Intellectualism? >>> >>> >>> [Arlo] >>>> This has been done, no? Donald Wood wrote "Post-Intellectualism and the >>>> Decline of Democracy: The Failure of Reason and Responsibility in the >>>> Twentieth Century" in 1996. >>>> >>>> From Amazon's site: Our society's institutional infrastructures—our >>>> democratic political system, economic structures, legal practices, and >>>> educational establishment—were all created as intellectual outgrowths of >>>> the Enlightenment. All our cultural institutions are based on the >>>> intellectual idea that an enlightened citizenry could govern its affairs >>>> with reason and responsibility. In the late 20th century, however, we are >>>> witnessing the disintegration of much of our cultural heritage. Wood >>>> argues that this is due to our evolution into a ^Upost-intellectual >>>> society^R—a society characterized by a loss of critical thinking, the >>>> substitution of information for knowledge, mediated reality, increasing >>>> illiteracy, loss of privacy, specialization, psychological isolation, >>>> hyper-urbanization, moral anarchy, and political debilitation. These >>>> post-intellectual realities are all triggered by three underlying >>>> determinants: the failure of linear growth and expansion to sustain our >>>> economic system; the runaway information overload; and technological >>>> determinism. Wood presents a new and innovative social theory, challenging >>>> readers to analyze all our post-intellectual cultural malaise in terms of >>>> these three fundamental determinants. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
