Or Advocacy Masquerading As Research?
Last week John Ellis and Charles Geshekter, part of the California Association of Scholars who you might remember published a report that attempts to warn us against a rising tide political activism at the University California, wrote an Op-Ed published by the LA Times.
They argue that political advocacy corrupts academic institution because it promotes a mindset of conformity rather than independent thought and analytic skills.
The authors argue, “A bias to the left is now accepted as a routine part of a University of California education.”
But, as before, their evidence is both thin and fleeting as they cite the ratio of Democrats to Republicans at UC Berkeley as evidence of activism.
“The visible signs of activism at work are shocking,” they argue. “Why should the mission statement of the sociology department at UC Santa Cruz claim that a ‘just, free and equal society’ may require ‘fundamental social change?’ Sociology classes should help students understand how societies work, but at Santa Cruz, the mission seems to be enlisting students in activism.”
They have a litany of examples (you can read them here) and argue, “UC administrators protest that these are isolated examples, but research shows they are not. A recent study found that at UC Berkeley and UCLA, 49% of students reported that they had had a course on a controversial subject where the readings were completely one-sided. This is a deeply and dangerously politicized system.”
They add, “Real academics would consider a department of political science, or of sociology, that lacks one-half of the spectrum of ideas as incompetent. Today’s campus proselytizers think it’s just fine for the objective they have in mind, which is not educational but ideological.”
They note a meeting at the Chico Chamber of Commererce, “One of us asked UC President Mark Yudof for his views on classroom politicization. Yudof admitted that it aggravated him. ‘Professors are there to educate,’ he said, ‘not to rouse the troops for a cause.’ “
They add: “If he felt this way, he was asked, why wouldn’t he say so in a memo to his campus chancellors, telling them to take appropriate action? Somewhat shaken, Yudof could only say: ‘I could do that. I don’t know that it would do much good.’ “
“Taxpayers are annoyed by excessive salaries for administrators; they ought to be even more annoyed at how little they do to earn those salaries,” they write. “As the cost of a college education skyrockets, quality sinks. Numerous studies show that an alarming proportion of recent college graduates have not learned to reason, to write, or to read complex material, and know little about American history and our political and socioeconomic institutions.”
The authors conclude, “That happens when radical activism replaces academic knowledge in campus classrooms. The politicized university is an intellectually bankrupt one.”
UCLA Chancellor Gene Block and Andrew Leuchter, a professor of psychology who chairs UCLA’s Academic Senate, are quick to respond.
They write, “It’s regrettable that John M. Ellis and Charles L. Geshekter of the California Assn. of Scholars, which produced a report purporting to show a liberal bias in University of California instruction, have so little faith in our students’ ability to reason and develop their own political opinions based on strong personal values.”
They agree that faculty ought not to inject political views into the classroom, but they argue that “Ellis and Geshekter have merely strung together anecdotes from handpicked courses across our system to try to prove a crisis.”
They argue, “The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data,’ however, and they cite no meaningful evidence. In fact, credible studies have shown that left leanings are typical of young Americans, and college does not make them any more liberal.”
Moreover, they add, “The real crisis in California public universities now is whether we will have the resources in the future to continue preparing our students – who are sharpening their independent, critical thinking skills at our campuses – to serve as the leaders of tomorrow.”
As we noted back in April when the study first came out, the authors have actually engaged in the same type of behavior they deplore.
Writes a scathing LA Times editorial: “When the group shows its work, things aren’t that clear. ‘A Crisis of Competence: The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California’ is a mélange of anecdotes, second-hand studies (some of them national surveys that may not reflect the situation at the UCs), leaps of logic and ideological hyperventilation.”
As the LA Times notes, it is not that UC or any system in California is beyond reproach. “Clearly,” they argue, “some UC professors and programs have on some occasions transgressed the line between education and indoctrination.” But overall, they argue, “the report fails to establish the existence of either a ‘cancer’ or a ‘crisis’ requiring urgent action by the Regents to restore a ‘rigorous marketplace of ideas.’ “
But anecdotes are easy to find. The real question is whether, on a systemic level, there exists some sort of problem that has impacted the quality of education more than years of lack of prioritization of funding by the state legislature and the voters.
‘The report cites a national study suggesting that a majority of teachers in the U.S. believe it is important to teach students to effect social change. “But is that sort of politicization pervasive at UC?” the LA Times asks, but the study never conclusively answers.
Instead, they cite the overwhelming discrepancy between Democrats and Republicans in social science departments. Writes the Times, “Imbalances like that are eye-opening, but they don’t prove that professors are pressing their politics on their students or are incapable of exploring other points of view.” Part of the problem is a self-selective process that leads to career choices, but again, this hardly proves the point that they are making.
Writes the LA Times, “In fact, the report is short of proof of any kind that UC suffers from a ‘cancer of politicization.’ Anecdotes abound, but quantification is elusive.”
In fact, it is this lack of quantification that leads me to believe that this report really commits the same sort of errors that they accuse professors of doing.
The LA Times adds, “Anticipating assertions that most teachers conduct their classes responsibly and without politicization, the report notes that ‘the word “most” is consistent with the existence of a huge problem. If even 10% of classrooms are corrupted, that would be horrendous, and yet the word “most” would allow far more than that.’ “
But as the Times points out, even the 10% figure lacks quantification and backing. The report instead asserts, without much more than scattered anecdotal evidence, that indoctrination is “so widespread, and so open, that it is now clear that politicization is acceptable both to faculty and administration.”
Furthermore, the Times hammers the report for failing to “justify its apocalyptic title by documenting a link between politicization and declining standards.”
Concludes the LA Times, “Anyone who has been to college knows that a minority of professors, liberal and conservative, succumb to the occupational hazard of inflicting their political (and other) views on their students without allowing any dissent.”
They add, “When that occurs, at UC or elsewhere, administrators need to remind faculty of the importance of open and uninhibited discussion. But the California Assn. of Scholars insists that more must be done to address the ‘crisis.’ It suggests that the Regents require ‘annual campus reports of progress in returning the campus to intellectual health, making it clear that administrations that have not achieved substantial progress will be replaced.’ Before instituting such an intrusive policy, the Regents should demand more proof of a problem than is contained in this report.”
It is not shockomg that Mr. Ellis and Mr. Geshekter are telling us that the UC system is getting more liberal and that this is the cause of its downfall.
Indeed, the organization they lead was founded to prove that the universities of California serve as liberal indoctrination camps.
They ignore the rising costs of education, the cuts to the budget, and other factors that are far more likely to bring down the system than a few scattered incidents that they can cite.
There is nothing in their writings that would suggest that these are more than a few scattered anecdotes.
In short, they have performed bold conclusions without having done the research to back it up – exactly what they accuse UC of doing.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]They agree that faculty ought not to inject political views into the classroom…
“Clearly,” they argue, “some UC professors and programs have on some occasions transgressed the line between education and indoctrination.” “…
Instead, they cite the overwhelming discrepancy between Democrats and Republicans in social science departments. Writes the Times, “Imbalances like that are eye-opening…[/quote]
It is pretty clear that some UC professors are engaging in behavior that is inappropriate. I suspect this is going on at campuses all over the country. College professors need to understand it is their job to foster creative/critical thinking, not to sway students to their point of view. I know all three of my children were ridiculed for their more conservative views by both their high school teachers and college professors. They learned the hard way to keep their mouths shut, so their grades would not suffer…
you also can get a sense of this from the types of things that occur on campus on a regular basis. what is the ratio of conservative to left leaning cause celeb protests on campus?
political organizations fostering specific political causes? you only need walk around campus…
uc davis has its own LGBT building…..
class subjects like “multcultural history”…..
[quote]uc davis has its own LGBT building…..[/quote]
Wrong. UC Davis has a new “Student Community Center” that houses a number of facilities, which include the LGBT Resource Center. Other offices that are housed in this buidling include: Student Recruitment and Retention Center, Women’s Resources and Research Center outreach office, Undergraduate Research Center, the Ethnic Studies and Community Outreach satellite office and the UC Davis McNair Scholars Program office.
[quote]class subjects like “multcultural history”[/quote]
The horror! Like it or not, the US is a multicultural nation, and has a multicultural history. I see nothing controversial about teaching the contributions that non-WASPies have made to this country.
yes, you are right. The LGBT section in the resource center.
and in regards to your other comment, those sorts of classes are ripe for WASP bashing, amercia bashing, and all things western bashing. I was in one of those classes.
91,
[i]those sorts of classes [multicultural history] are ripe for WASP bashing, amercia bashing, and all things western bashing. I was in one of those classes. [/i]
How so? Certainly you must agree that America has, historically, treated other races and cultures quite terribly. Discussing those issues is important.
91,
[i]yes, you are right. The LGBT section in the resource center.[/i]
Which is or isn’t indicative of some sort of left-leaning academic agenda?
Rather than read DMG’s attempt to divert attention from this important study, take a look for yourself.
It’s available at
[url]http://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf[/url]
For those who are familiar with UC, either because they are students, employees or have kids attending one of the campuses, and who are not idealogical, there will be little surprising, though much that is distrurbing, in this study. .
On the other hand, there are those who want you not to read the study. Reminds me of the City Council members who wanted the Ombudsmen study not to be read.
I will read this study with great interest.
From David’s summary it sounds like it will confirm what many conservatives already know; that institutions of higher-learning are infested with liberal bias and have been increasingly brainwashing young people to adopt a left-leaning worldview. This in and of itself would not be so alarming given the propensity for young people – who are still lacking experience for completely supporting themselves, raising families and paying middle-class income tax rates – to be socially and fiscally idealistic.
However, there are two things making it alarming:
1.The scarcity of conservative instructors, topics and instruction to balance an explosion of liberal instructors, topics and instruction.
2.The demonstrated level of academic disrespect for conservative ideas and opinions.
I would care if the trend was reversed. For example, I would absolutely insist that blatant conservative bias in our public universities be rigorously combated to be replaced with a balanced approach and offering. I would absolutely not tolerate disrespect for liberal ideas in ANY education entity.
David,
Good article, long overdue.
In my experience (and those of relatives and friends) there is no question that in the United States, many of the humanities departments–mainly sociology and political science, but also to some extent even anthropology and history departments–have had a very strong liberal bias, with a tendency toward strong critique of traditional institutions and cultural norms, and embracing of the latest liberal ideas.
Although critical examination and critique of the dominant culture and history is healthy; it is often not balanced with pointing out the positive aspects of the dominant culture and history, and seems in many cases it goes beyond critiquing to that of activism.
As K. Smith says above; “Like it or not, the US is a multicultural nation, and has a multicultural history. I see nothing controversial about teaching the contributions that non-WASPies have made to this country.”
However too often what happens is that only the bad points of the dominant culture are examined, and only the good points of the minority cultures (a student that strays from this agenda may find themselves in deep doo-doo). A dispassionate balance that shows the good and bad of both the dominant and the minority cultures and how they interact seems rarely to be sought in the classroom; which then becomes an excercise in propaganda rather than a critical examination of our cultures and history; the good, bad, and ugly.
Jeff–I’m a researcher at one of the science departments in the university, and most of the students there are not brainwashed by liberal bias. Most of the science professors and staff, even in environmental sciences, are politically moderate; with a large percentage of independents.
Even within the humanities departments, I would say most of the students who take classes such as sociology are well-aware that many of the classes are being taught in a biased manner, and it does not sway their thinking to a large degree. There are probably a small percentage of humanities majors who are taken in or ‘captivated’ by this bias. I suspect that it is true that if you are seeking a profession as a sociology professor; expression of certain ‘progressive’ viewpoints are going to help out quite a bit as compared with expression of more traditional viewpoints!
Superflous: “How so? Certainly you must agree that America has, historically, treated other races and cultures quite terribly. Discussing those issues is important.”
In other words, America (translation: white America) has baggage so therefore it justifies bashing in a classroom – (as if other cultures are perfect historically.) which sort of proves the main thrust of the LA times article.
jimt: excellent points above.
I want to say that my experiences in college completely mirror what the guy in the LA times is saying.
one professor’s leftist rants in my class would have made for some great youtube theater.
some were less extreme, but leftist nonetheless.
another homosexual professor let it be known to us that “he better not find out that any of us voted in favor of proposition 8.” (yes it definitely felt like an open threat)
another one made the comment in class after the reelection of president bush the following: “four more years of being disrespected by the rest of the world.”
another: “bush sucks.”
another: “I just don’t understand why the (US) supreme court stopped the recounts in florida.”
I could have listed a lot more. This is only a small sampling of the crap I got.
jimt: [i]”most of the students there are not brainwashed by liberal bias.”[/i]
First, thanks for the excellent post at 3:04 AM (do you have trouble sleeping too?)
While I appreciate the point that different academic disciplines may trend more moderate; I think we have to agree that there is a dearth of conservative people working in academia.
The 2001 Gallup poll on this subject found that the largest group of Americans identify as conservative, at 40 percent. Another 35 percent identify as moderate, while 21 percent identify as liberal.
In a 2005 study co-authored Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University, 72% of the people teaching in American universities identified themselves as politically liberal.
From the study: [quote]“There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.”[/quote]
So, in the real world we have 21% liberals; but in academia we have 72% liberals.
The brainwashing that occurs happens over a student’s full university experience. I have had to deprogram several of my friends’ kids who would usually say something like: “Why didn’t any of my professors explain it that way?”
In recent years it hasn’t helped that some common conservative stances have often opposed Darwinian evolution and conventionally observed trends in global climate change on the basis of things other than science. I think it has pushed a lot of scientists away from conservative political positions that might otherwise be more comfortable to adopt.
Science is a means of establishing agreement on objectively observed evidence. To reject the process of science is like rejecting objective reality.
I have been watching to see how Romney’s views “evolve” on global climate change ([url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/15/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-and-whether-humans-are-causing-climate/[/url]) and evolution ([url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/23/jon-huntsman-mitt-romney-s-pro-science-stand-as-mormon-2012-gop-candidates.html[/url]). To me it seems a little more promising on the issue of evolution than with climate change, but there are still a few months to go.
JB: [i]The brainwashing that occurs happens over a student’s full university experience.[/i]
I don’t think brainwashing occurs to individuals who genuinely have the ability to think critically. I also think critical thinking skills develop over a timeline longer than an undergraduate career.
wdf1: Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was the responsibility of a college to teach and develop critical thinking skills. If an overhelming political or social bent (72% liberal) does not cause you concern, then why are you so against vouchers on the primary bases that K-12 public money would go to schools with a different political or social bent (e.g., religious schools?)
[quote]A new Gallup poll, released Dec. 17, (2010) reveals that 40 percent of Americans still believe that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years. This number is slightly down from a previous high of 47 percent in 1993 and 1999.
Another 38 percent of respondents believe that humans have evolved from more basic organisms but with God playing a role in the process.
A mere 16 percent of respondents subscribed to the belief of “secular evolution”: that humans have evolved with no divine guidance. However, this number has nearly doubled from nine percent of respondents in a poll from 1982.[/quote]
Even an objective secular mind understanding the theories of evolution should find the theory of Intelligent Design no more fantastic than the still unproven notion that humans evolved from some billion-year old tarry goo.
This all makes one ponder the potential close-mindedness of the scientific community. You and others seem to defend theories of evolution and global warming with zest and emotional fervor reminiscent of those protecting their religious beliefs. It demonstrates that the ideology of modern liberalism has become the secular resting-place to satiate a basic human need for spirituality.
Meanwhile, our education system has been dominated by the church of liberalism even while the majority of the population do not subscribe its scripture.
JB: [i]This all makes one ponder the potential close-mindedness of the scientific community.[/i]
The possibilities of scientific inquiry, including intelligent design, are endlessly available as hypotheses. The evidence does not favor advancing intelligent design in front of all other possiblities. Working in a scientific context does not preclude one from having a rich religious or spiritual (whatever terminology you choose to use) life. It just means that you are likelier to use certain narratives metaphorically rather than literally.
It is the difference between saying, “I love you” to your wife, or instead giving a blow by blow narrative account of the hormonal biochemical changes going on inside when you contemplate your wife. Your wife wants to hear the first alternative. A neurologist finds the second alternative more interesting. Both exist within the appropriate lens of knowledge.
Those wielding the sword of science to disprove the existence of God, are transferring godlike qualities to science and themselves.
Most believers are smart enough to know they cannot prove the existence of god. Belief rests in faith and hope, not in proof.
The First Amendment is used by the secularists to prevent religious expression and belief in our society… that is exactly the opposite of the intent of our founders who were more concerned about government suppressing or prosecuting religious belief and practice.
JB: [i]Those wielding the sword of science to disprove the existence of God, are transferring godlike qualities to science and themselves.[/i]
It is not an issue of disproving God. It is an issue of objectively proving God that’s the issue. Part of the problem is even agreeing on what God is.
And finding words to talk about it. Is it Zeus? Allah? Yahweh? The Pope’s God? Fred Phelps’ God? Pat Robertson’s God? A Hindu deity? Fine if you have a personal belief. Then it’s subjective; nothing wrong subjectivity as long as you recognize it for what it is. But try to go out and get large numbers of people to agree with you, then you start having problems finding enough clear agreement.
JB: [i]Most believers are smart enough to know they cannot prove the existence of god. Belief rests in faith and hope, not in proof.[/i]
Agreed. I’m with you on that. I’m not sure where you’re looking for disagreement.
vanguard: “They note a meeting at the Chico Chamber of Commererce, “One of us asked UC President Mark Yudof for his views on classroom politicization. Yudof admitted that it aggravated him. ‘Professors are there to educate,’ he said, ‘not to rouse the troops for a cause.’ “
They add: “If he felt this way, he was asked, why wouldn’t he say so in a memo to his campus chancellors, telling them to take appropriate action? Somewhat shaken, Yudof could only say: ‘I could do that. I don’t know that it would do much good.’ “
This statement by Yudof is particularly revealing as Yudof is President of the CA UC system. So for the vanguard to criticize these people as if they don’t have anything substantive to back up their claims is little more than bluster from the vanguard.
JB: [i]Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was the responsibility of a college to teach and develop critical thinking skills.[/i]
Sure. But are you thinking that critical thinking is a finitely achieved skill? Like taking apart and putting together an M-16 rifle? I think I developed critical thinking skills in college, but I don’t think I was as good at it then as I think I am now.
“In a 2005 study co-authored Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University, 72% of the people teaching in American universities identified themselves as politically liberal.
From the study:
“There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.”
So, in the real world we have 21% liberals; but in academia we have 72% liberals.
The brainwashing that occurs happens over a student’s full university experience. I have had to deprogram several of my friends’ kids who would usually say something like: “Why didn’t any of my professors explain it that way?”
I read your statistics and interpret them entirely differently. Since the majority of Americans identify themselves as conservatives, this is the bacground in which most Americans are raised and which they perceive, uncritically, to be “the truth”. It is with this basic indoctrination of patriotism and religion that they arrive at our universities. Since it is the job of the university to promote independent critical thinking, a bias towards questioning the precepts with which most Americans have been raised would seem in order to me. How does it promote critical thinking to merely reassure someone that the ideas that he has grown up with are indeed correct without ever having them challenged in a meaning ful way? Also, you belie your statement about promoting a fair hearing for all sides when you speak of any idea which is left leaning “brainwashing”.
medwoman: Probably without knowing it, you just disparaged the parents and the upbringing of the majority of Americans that attend college as being ignorant and patriotic country bumpkins in need of the sophisticated, and righteous lessons of elite college professors before they “get it”.
You also confirmed my point about liberal bias and brainwashing as defined: “any method of controlled systematic indoctrination.”
You and I and everyone else with half a brain knows that no effective teacher can prevent passing on her beliefs and views to her students. Effective teaching requires trust and a relationship between teacher and student. It requires that both get to know each other. Good teaching requires the context of personal perspective. You cannot just point to textbooks as proof that liberal bias does not exist.
If 72% of the teachers are liberal (and a higher percentage teaches certain subjects) you can bet that there is around 72% more liberal worldview influence promulgated within the student population.
How about a little conservative affirmative action to round out the diversity of the teaching staff? Oh wait… liberals’ definition of diversity only pertains to superficial representation of certain protected groups… not real ideas or views.
Jeff,
Wow, very interesting statistic that 72% of college teachers identify themselves as liberal.
This does surprise me, I would have guessed (incorrectly) around 40%.
UC Davis is slightly more conservative than other UC Schools (e.g. Berkeley, UCLA), but is likely close to the national average; so perhaps around 70% of UC Davis professors are liberal! Yikes!
I can say that in the sciences, a liberal slant is not manifest in the classroom (as it often is in the humanities).
Jeff
“medwoman: Probably without knowing it, you just disparaged the parents and the upbringing of the majority of Americans that attend college as being ignorant and patriotic country bumpkins in need of the sophisticated, and righteous lessons of elite college professors before they “get it.”
What I wrote was intentional and deliberate, and the pejoraties are all yours, not mine I respect the beliefs of my parents even while disagreeing with them..I know exactly how the beliefs of small town conservative communitities are taught since I grew up in a very conservative town of 2000. You will note that I did not make any reference to “bumpkins”or “ignorance” in my statement. Although I will now. I believe that you are trying to imply that I see “ignorance” as a pejorative. Ignorance means a lack of knowledge of something. In the town in which I was raised, there was certainly a lack of knowledge of any liberal ideas. From first hand experience I can tell you that Elaine’s stories of her kids being “brought into line” for voicing minority views are not limited to one political philosophy or the other. I was bullied for presenting the possibility of considering a more liberal viewpoint. Using the definition of “any method of controlled systematic indoctrination”, I cannot imagine a better description than this for the rural conservative town in which I was raised.
Moving to California presented me with a set of ideas that simply did not exist for me previously outside the library. I am quite sure that given your statistics, I am not the only one who has first encountered a completely new set of ideas at college. So by your numbers, with the vast majority of students arriving having been taught from birth conservative principles, I would say that beginning an introduction to liberal thinking at age 18 or so is just beginning to introduce some balance in presentation of ideas. Unless of course, you are asserting that instruction in critical thinking only begins when one arrives at college. I believe that it should be being taught throughout one’s life, should be demonstrated through example by one’s parents, in day care, through elementary, secondary and high school . I do not think that there needs to be a war between faith on one side and secular thought processes on the other, between conservative ideology and liberal ideology. These are two different ways of viewing the world. I do not believe that it is necessary to demonize or belittle the beliefs of the other side to make your own perception known.
but that is what I see you doing consistently in calling the teaching of liberal ideas “brain washing” or “”superficial representation of certain protected groups…..not real ideas or views”. From your own statistics it is very hard to see conservatives in the country as a whole as a minority group in need of any kind of protection. Could it be that you only perceive as “real ideas or views” those that conform to your own ?
Medwoman:
Thanks. I understand your point and perspectives better. I apologize for my accusatory tone.
[i]”Could it be that you only perceive as “real ideas or views” those that conform to your own ?”[/i]
Not at all. If you haven’t yet noticed about me, I like to debate. I think, and I have always thought, that all the good stuff is wrapped up in a conflict of ideas. I get agitated and worried when groups of people agree with each other on complex issues. In fact, I often play devil’s advocate just to stir the pot and make sure the topic is well vetted.
Your experience growing up in a small conservative town and in a conservative family must have been different than mine. My immediate and extended family is filled with under-educated intellectuals that also love to debate. I say under-educated, because many of them have only a high-school education or a few years at a junior college. There are only a couple of Masters, and no PHDs. However, get them together with any liberal academic type and they will more than hold their own. What they lack in ability to name-drop and quote, they make up in practical experience and common sense.
However, there are a lot of kids that grow up like you did – in more of a small town conservative cocoon. A place where you did not challenge the status quo unless you wanted to be teased and possibly abused by the ignorant, insecure nimrods that want to control everything. So then you go to college and get to feel the glow of a mind expanding. Your teachers actually encourage critical thinking and welcome thoughtful debate. You feel energized, motivated, appreciated… you start to adopt and emulate the views of the teachers you look up to.
The problem here is that there is another cocoon of liberalism that has enveloped higher learning. It is more expansive than the small town conservative cocoon, but because of the role of a college or university, it is much more socially damaging. You don’t easily challenge this liberal status quo for different reasons:
One – those in control are highly-trained to corral your thoughts and lead you to their way of thinking.
Two – you would be challenging and ideology that has been adopted as a replacement for a spiritual identity.
Three – you would be made to feel like you don’t belong (conservatives are the yucky people on campus)… originating from all those ignorant small towns.
Four – and this is the most important one… there are few conservative teachers that help you develop ideas and views that challenge the status quo.
All of us should be concerned about the HUGE disparity in liberal-versus-conservative teachers on our campuses. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Liberals comfortable in their power to prevent challenges to their ideas and views are half blind… just as conservatives would be if the roles were reversed.
We need demand that colleges recruit more conservative teachers to match the campus rhetoric about the need for diversity.
[i]JB: “Most believers are smart enough to know they cannot prove the existence of god. Belief rests in faith and hope, not in proof.”
wdf1: “Agreed. I’m with you on that. I’m not sure where you’re looking for disagreement.”[/i]
When you have dudes like Stephen Hawking saying there he is sure there is no God, but then saying he wants to peek into a parallel universe before he dies…
Science has a growing problem in that it has become aligned with, or has been coopted by, the secular left for political purpose. This has damaged the brand of science (guilt by association), and has caused a deeper division in our culture war of traditional values versus secular-progressive values. Comments like Mr. Hawking made only serve to increase the division.
Politicized science is a dangerous force that warrants resistance no matter the level of objectivity or subjectivity for the conflicting position. Since liberalism and science combine to deal with many topics that impact religious beliefs, I’m of the mind that we should consider liberal ideology and the science exploited by it as another form of religion that warrants consideration for separation from state.
[quote]Politicized science is a dangerous force that warrants resistance no matter the level of objectivity or subjectivity for the conflicting position. Since liberalism and science combine to deal with many topics that impact religious beliefs, I’m of the mind that we should consider liberal ideology and the science exploited by it as another form of religion that warrants consideration for separation from state. [/quote]
So, because science questions religion, it should itself be considered a “religion” under the constitution? I’m not following the line of argument here.
And, I don’t see how Hawking’s comment is any more inflammatory (and probably quite a deal less so) than any of the religionists out there who want to ram their beliefs down everyone’s throats. Particularly all of the religiously-based legislative actions recently that want to limit actions that should be decided in consultation only with a person and his/her physician.
From the vast majority of recent evidence, it is the religious right who has been causing deeper divisions and amping up the culture war, and not “scientists.”
I’m not understanding what appears to me a kind of schizophrenia in your philosophy. For example, you have many times pointed out the danger of “statist” systems, and how change is good, and yet you continually defend leaving “traditional religion” alone as if it were sacrosanct and free from any agents of change in the culture.
K.Smith:
[i]”So, because science questions religion, it should itself be considered a “religion” under the constitution? I’m not following the line of argument here.”[/i]
Science has aligned with leftist politics to replace religion. It is a new kind of God-less religion in this respect. It has its own disciples and leaders and a congregation of followers who demand compliance with no less fervor.
[i]”For example, you have many times pointed out the danger of “statist” systems, and how change is good, and yet you continually defend leaving “traditional religion” alone as if it were sacrosanct and free from any agents of change in the culture.:[/i]
Religion and culture should be sacrosanct… or at least allowed to be change-averse.
To grow properly, people, families, communities, societies… they all need some binding moral and cultural basis. Like a tree without a root system, without a common moral and cultural base, we all risk growing haphazardly and eventually toppling. We have natural law which derives from a moral basis… which for most of the Western world is based on forms of Christianity or Judaism.
Morality and culture are closely intertwined. Together they form the foundation on which we can benefit from a dynamic society. When we through morality and culture into the dynamism grinder with everything else, we grow haphazardly and eventually topple over.
I say pick your battles for change… and steer clear of the traditional values that form the basis for our country. Modern science routinely tramples on the moral and cultural beliefs of our traditions with wild abandon. Maybe scientists and liberals just need a little sensitivity training…
JB: [i]Science has aligned with leftist politics to replace religion. It is a new kind of God-less religion in this respect. It has its own disciples and leaders and a congregation of followers who demand compliance with no less fervor.[/i]
We’re not even connecting cognitively on this. You’re generalizing BS and seem to be out looking for any reason to grind your ax.
A lot of science research is driven by smart people with strong personalities and big egos who would have no trouble challenging previously held assumptions if there were solid evidence to do so. In fact, it goes on all the time, just not usually in ways that make a big splash in the public media.
Earlier you said, “Most believers are smart enough to know they cannot prove the existence of god. Belief rests in faith and hope, not in proof.”
As far as I’m concerned, science currently neither proves nor disproves God. The extent of current science body of explanation functions just fine without a need to say, “…and this happened because God did it.” God is not within the reality of science, and I don’t think that’s a problem.
There are plenty of scientists who have theistic religious views. They are probably more aware of the difference between a subjective and objective view of reality than you give them credit for.
[i]”You’re generalizing BS and seem to be out looking for any reason to grind your ax.”[/i]
No, not any reason. There is a very good axe to grind here. The points are just nuanced and require some deep thinking and an open mind.
[i]”A lot of science research is driven by smart people with strong personalities and big egos who would have no trouble challenging previously held assumptions if there were solid evidence to do so.”[/i]
Sure, using methods that only the internal profession of science would accept… which gets us back the point:
“Belief rests in faith and hope, not in proof”
Science cannot prove the existence of God. It also cannot disprove the existence of God. Since science can do neither, it also cannot disprove supernatural causation for observable occurrence and phenomena.
Let’s get something clear here. I am not some religious thumper. I am a huge fan of science and always have been. What I am struggling with is the growing intolerance of western religion and religious beliefs. At worst science has become hostile to religion; at best it has grown intolerant. For example, there is Stephen Hawking’s quote about God not existing.
Certainly science and religion have been at odds before. Darwin quote: [i][b]“Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.”[/i][/b]
So, there you have it. The very scientist that threw creationism on its head advocates for “caution in admitting evidence”, and the ability for “every man to judge for himself”. However, these prior cultural/religious sensitivity filters of scientists are gone, scientists have aligned themselves with the political left in a culture war, and our children are precluded from judging for themselves the theory of irreducible complexity of the eye due to some weird secular fear that religious beliefs within our public institutions will cause harm.
[quote]I say pick your battles for change… and steer clear of the traditional values that form the basis for our country. [/quote]
Wow. If this were widely accepted, we would still be living in, at best, 17th-century conditions.
So, which cultural battles would you have steered clear from in the name of protecting sacrosanct religious/cultural traditions? Allowing women the right to vote? Slavery (a long-time “tradition”)? Who gets to be the arbiter of which battles we are allowed to pick?
If we were to take to its furthest conclusion your idea of leaving religious/cultural values alone (particularly, as you suggest, those based on Judeo Christian belief), we would still be patriarchal bands of polygamous nomads wandering through the Middle Eastern deserts.
K. Smith.
I wrote religious/cultural values. I should have wrote religious-cultural values.
– Denying women the right to vote was never a Christian or Jewish religious-cultural value that I am aware of. Neither was slavery. In fact, I would make the case that it was religious-culture values that ended both of these practices.
– As far as polygamous nomads wandering through deserts… only the polygamous point can be attributed to some sects of Christianity and maybe the Old Testament. Jewish polygamy was pretty much wiped out by the Romans in the very early times of the church. I don’t think any western religious-cultural norms require folk to wander through the desert. Now… there is hajj if you are a devout Muslim… but again, that is not a western religious practice.
JB: [i]Let’s get something clear here. I am not some religious thumper. I am a huge fan of science and always have been.[/i]
I was half expecting you to follow up with “some of my best friends are scientists.”
Again, I think we’re talking past each other. You generalize scientists as if they were power-hungry card carrying Masons who meet secretly every Wednesday morning to figure out how to further their chokehold on power. I insist there’s nothing mysterious about it and that it’s all very transparent.
If it feels mysterious to a lay-person, that is because there is a tremendous amount of science research that has brought us to this point in time, and it is difficult to explain adequately all the background on many scientific concepts within a matter of minutes.
JB: [i]…using methods that only the internal profession of science would accept…[/i]
If you are fan of the Teaching Company, as you have said you are before, I highly recommend watching/listening to Robert Hazen’s Joy of Science ([url]http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1100[/url]), most especially the first lecture or two. It is all about the nature of science. I have also seen it available at the Davis public library.
There is nothing mysterious about it. Again, it is all a means of coming to objective agreement about how to examine the natural world. Everyone checks each other’s work, tries to reproduce it and build on it. If you introduce God into an objective discussion, it bastardizes the process because God is understood as a subjective and individual experience to many, others don’t think they sense God as an entity or concept (atheists), and still others aren’t sure (agnostics).
Hawking can have his opinion about God, and that’s fine. So can Einstein (“God doesn’t play dice”) or Darwin (very fascinating to read about his and his wife’s experience with religion; Darwin and his wife did not agree with each other, but loved each other in spite). But scientists I know understand these discussions to be about human experience outside the realm of science. It’s often an interesting curiosity to non-scientists to wonder what kind of subjective life (including religion) scientists have, especially more prominent ones.
If you don’t feel any personal religious calling, then why are you so interested in seeing that God be introduced into discussions of science? On the other hand, you and I see that gravity affects us in our lives, so that is an objective point of discussion that would be appropriate for science.
To speak of science as being anti-religious is to miss the point completely.
[i]”If you don’t feel any personal religious calling, then why are you so interested in seeing that God be introduced into discussions of science?”[/i]
I am interested in freedom of others to hold on to their personal religious beliefs, and not be denied them in public life, as long as those beliefs do not materially harm others.
Science has become more hostile to religion at the same time their primary political benefactors have become more hostile to (primarily western) religion. I see the hostility toward religion as being harmful to religious people.
You seem to see science as more righteous because it derives from the objective mind (and is vetted by all these other objective minds). I see science no more righteous because: for one – God and religion are as important to some people as is the air and water that scientists can measure and are absolutely sure they know how it got here (right), and two – it is possible that scientists are still too ignorant to know how to measure the things they consider to be contained within the subjective mind.
Maybe once Mr. Hawking peeks inside that parallel universe he theorizes exists by crunching of numbers, he will change his mind about the existence of God.
Getting this back to topic… 72% liberals teaching our nation’s youth is a problem. Too many students graduate still in need of critical thinking development.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9dclpQPrWE[/url]
“Religion and culture should be sacrosanct”
Here we will continue to have a major point of disagreement. For me, nothing should be “sacrosanct”. Respected,yes. Appreciated, certainly.
But held to be beyond questioning, beyond comparing to other belief systems, beyond our ability to reconsider and change, absolutely not.
Given the limitations of human knowledge and understanding, to pretend that one’s own concept of what is true to the exclusion of all other beliefs is the ultimate in hubristic elitism whether one is Hawking or the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church.
I did write that, but I don’t completely agree with it. What I meant is that religious-cultural values should be sacrosanct. However, I draw the line when religious-cultural values cause unnecessary material harm to people within or outside of the practices.
Beyond that, I think culture should be valued, but should not be sacrosanct. I don’t think liberals value traditional American culture as much as conservatives do. If aspects of our traditional American culture cause unnecessary material harm to others, I would not value it. Slavery was an example. There are many things about our current culture that I think causes unnecessary material harm… although none probably as onerous as slavery.
“Religion and culture should be sacrosanct”
Another couple of thoughts about this statement.
1) Do you mean all religions, or only Christianity ? For example, in some forms of Sharia it is still acceptable to chop off the hand of a thief and stone an adulterous woman. If believers in these religious precepts settle here, should their religion be held sacrosanct?
2) If you see science as a religion as you have frequently stated, then should it’s precepts not be held equal to those of Christianity ? So if for example, studies were done that showed no adverse affects from gay couples raising children, you would then embrace gay marriage because the “religion of science” had demonstrated its validity ?
I cannot help but feel that when you say ” religion and culture” should be sacrosanct, you are referring to your religion and culture. I suspect tbat millions of people, many just as American as you are, feel just as protective of their “religion and culture” which happen to be diametrically opposed to yours in some respects. So Jeff, when there are conflicts between these beliefs, whose ” religion and culture” should take precedence ?
Jeff
Oops, it looks like I wrote too soon and we crossed posts . Your clarifications of your opinions are much appreciated.
Medwoman:
I think we are not reading each other’s posts before we post!
1) Chopping off hands of a thief and stoning an adulterous wife is in the unnecessary harm category. Although I think the first could be argued. Certainly not the second.
2) The problem here is that the religion of science would be in conflict with other religions. Since no material harm is caused by separate but equal civil unions (IMO), I would continue to support that over a change making gay and man-woman marriage exactly alike in our legal and cultural definition. I think if science proved no difference between the results of gay and traditional parenting, I would be happy for all the children who have enough struggles that we adults have caused them.
Note that I am saying religious-culture should be sacrosanct if not causing unnecessary material harm to people. A good example is a Christmas tree in a public area. That is part of our traditional eligious culture, and it does not cause any material harm to others.
Not causing material harm should be the most fundamental component of human morality. We would all do well to consider it as a basis for our moral compass in almost everything we do. I realize that there is subjectivity in assessing the definition of “material”.
For example, does a spouse cheating cause material harm? I say yes, but some would argue that it is only emotional harm if caught. Some could say that the spouse filing for divorce instead of working hard to save a marriage causes material harm if there are children involved.
I think children of religious families that are taught the theory of intelligent design are not materially harmed and do not harm others. However, these religious families and their children are materially harmed not having this option in the public schools when many have no affordable option to attend an alternative private school.
Jeff
“Not causing material harm should be the most fundamental component of human morality. We would all do well to consider it as a basis for our moral compass in almost everything we do. I realize that there is subjectivity in assessing the definition of “material.”
Now I think we are getting down to the crux of the issue that forms our very different views of the world. You place not causing “material harm”
As the most fundamental component of human morality. I place not causing emotional, social, psychological harm as greater components of human morality. Your value system, as you have stated it, is fundamentally based upon the material and economic. Mine is based on spiritual, psychological, and social well being. Sometiimes these two principles will complement each other. Often, they will be in conflict and that is where you will find us on opposite sides of an issue.
JB: [i]”Not causing material harm should be the most fundamental component of human morality. We would all do well to consider it as a basis for our moral compass in almost everything we do. I realize that there is subjectivity in assessing the definition of “material.” [/i]
Here’s one:
There are topics that were once only more subjectively studied which science could not address very well, but with improved research and technology, it is possible to apply scientific principals to the inquiry.
One example is homosexuality. Authoritarian religious culture has used dogma to marginalize homosexuals by declaring them sinners. Homosexuality could only be researched from subjective experience at one time. Based on that subjectivity, it was possible to argue that homosexuality was a deviant and sinful choice.
Nowadays is plenty of ongoing biological research ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation[/url]) that shows that sexual orientation is not a choice, but in fact a product of nature (or as some might say, “a creation of God”).
Science in this case is a check on authoritarian religion’s tendencies toward excessive social control. In spite of what is known, homosexuality is a sin in many religions. A number of conventional Christian faiths have moved to saying that there is nothing wrong with having homosexual feelings, but view any sex outside of marriage to be a sin, and also conveniently decree that marriage is only between a man and a woman. If you were gay, you could easily become a depressed self-loathing mess if you were raised Catholic, Mormon, Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant, mainstream Muslim, or a number of other religions. source ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_religion[/url])
Science makes no judgement on the religious virtue of an individual. But so far it does suggest that sexual orientation is as natural and varied as being right- or left-handed or ambidextrous.
This is an example of where authoritarian religion causes material harm to others through ostracism and social control by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. I understand the argument that churches and religions have the right to pursue whatever beliefs they want, and that the current gay marriage debate is really about civil recognition. But one step further, it is about opening the discussion up to how religious organizations can be respectful and accepting of youth who grow up in those religions and discover that they are gay. As it is now, many churches engage in emotional abuse by suppressing the ability of gay youth to talk about their own personal issues of sexual orientation.
College campuses are, for many gay youth, the first safe place safe place that they encounter in their lives. Which is why there is, to reference an earlier comment,
91 O: [i]The LGBT section in the resource center.[/i]
wdf1: Religious-culture that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation causes material harm. However, private religious institutions and private religious people that choose to believe that homosexuality is a sin do NOT cause material harm. As a society we have to figure out how to have our cake and eat it too on this one.
Maybe ongoing biological research will one day show that religious orientation is not a choice but a product of nature.
Have you every envisioned a world without religion? Many on the left of politics seem to focus on the glass half empty and lament the wars fought, pedophile priests and the oppressed and marginalized non-conformers; however I doubt many of us would be here today had it not been for the spread of religion to serve as a moral basis for humanity to function. Religion is far from perfect; but society and culture would be a mess without it.
I get what feeling rejected does to people… it causes the strongest emotional responses. Maybe science will explain the biological function for this too one day. However, in the meantime we all have to figure out a way to all get along holding different beliefs and lifestyles. Marginalizing, oppressing and rejecting people of faith in our left-controlled public institutions is not the way to get it done. Brainwashing students – whether overtly or consequentially – to reject conservative principles that are the basis for American culture is not the way to get it done.
[i]”Your value system, as you have stated it, is fundamentally based upon the material and economic. Mine is based on spiritual, psychological, and social well being. Sometiimes these two principles will complement each other. Often, they will be in conflict and that is where you will find us on opposite sides of an issue.”[/i]
Medwoman, I think this is fair observation, but a bit oversimplified.
I consider myself objective to fault, somewhat academically challenged (not the best memory for detail), but maybe above average in emotional intelligence or emotional self-confidence. For whatever reason, when I feel something most of the time I can pinpoint the source and make a good choice about what is good or bad for me in rational (not emotional) response. I can also read the emotions of others pretty well when I choose to.
There is not a day that goes by that I don’t wish people had an emotional switch I could turn off for a while so they could engage their brain the right way to solve a personal, social or professional problem. 90% of my job as a husband, father and manager seems to be dealing with the emotions of people. Trying to help them to “see” what is bothering them, or how they are behaving in an unproductive way, and help them discover how to fix it. Don’t I wish this was an easier process… like how about I just tell a person what their problem is… the one that I see so clearly… and tell them how to fix it? That does not work of course. And even with all my skill, time and effort… some will not be able to get it and move forward… until the next emotional roadblock.
The problem with assessing material value to emotional needs is that they can be irrational and never ending. For example, I get how a loving gay couple will feel emotional damage because they cannot legally marry. However, those feeling could be transferred from a history of feeling rejected from their parents… and winning the battle to marry will only be a temporary patch. The very fact that the gay rights movement rejects the concept of legally equal civil unions is evidence that the motivation is emotional rather than rational… unless it is political.
Spiritual, psychological and social well-being are all noble pursuits. The problem we have as a society, other than our inability to quantify the true need and our progress, is thinking we can address so many of these deficiencies in our public institutions when the source of the problems are usually individual emotional struggles and challenges. Why, after spending trillions, have we still not solved the war on hunger? Might we be going about it the wrong way?
I will attend another memorial service this weekend for someone I knew that lost a struggle with substance abuse and depression. I previously lost a step sister and two brother In-laws in similar circumstances. All of these people were surrounded with love and support from family and friends and copious social services. However, none of this helped. Right now I am angry thinking about all of these failed people, and I understand where my angry feelings originate from. However, when I calm down and think about the solution to similar problems… I am questioning the usefulness of low-expectation love, empathy and acceptance because it serves to delay the inevitable required individual epiphanies to quantify previously uncontrolled emotions before they lead to complete destruction. Frankly, I wish I had had it out with my brother In-laws instead of walking on so many egg-shells of the fragile emotions of the women that controlled the family.
But back to the topic… my focus on material harm is: one – to eliminate the qualitative and subjective values that are based on emotional problems which are inherently personal and impossible to solve with chronically inefficient government service; and two – provide a succinct benchmark for helping focus public and private people in their day-to-day decision processes. We cannot save everyone, and we can save very few people from themselves. By focusing on limiting the material harm done to others while keeping our economy robust and jobs plentiful, I think we are optimized in terms of public value to individuals. However, there will always be a percentage that lose their way and cannot get back because of their damn inability to control their destructive emotional responses.
“Religion is far from perfect; but society and culture would be a mess without it. “
Other than your own personal, and probably deeply held conviction, what is your evidence for this assertion ?
I believe that it is entirely possible to believe firmly in moral principles and to live by those precepts without invoking any story to explain the origins of the world, or any being to have created us and or passed down laws for us to live by. I simply do not believe that one has to adhere to the teachings of a particular religion to be a decent human being.
medwoman: First I need to make it clear that I am talking about our country of 314 million people of diverse origins and not some small tribe of homogeneous people. The Romans before the church are a good example of how a large collection of diverse people would live without a binding moral basis. Are the Ten Commandments just natural moral intuition? I don’t think so. Our sense of right and wrong is codified in law, but is based on a moral framework which has its origins in religious teachings. Without the church, we would have had kings making the rules to live by.
I recently read about African countries that force girls as young as twelve years old into marriage with much older HIV-positive men who believe that having sex with a virgin wife would cure them of HIV. It is Christian missionaries making the most progress changing this in their culture.
Given that every NGO that deals with HIV addresses that particular myth, and has done so for many years, makes me wonder what possible basis you could have for your statement that “It is Christian missionaries making the most progress changing this in their culture.” Secular and religious organizations alike deal with the many myths of HIV and the cultural issues surrounding it.
People who aren’t religious often believe that religions reflect the moral values of society, rather than the other way around. Many of the precepts of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule are common across many cultures. And any “sense of right and wrong” has changed dramatically in cultures over time in spite of common, often nearly universal, religions.
Churches and kings have always worked hand in hand, and always will.
Very interesting to read this thread, then head off to the Daily Beast and come across this: [url]http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/cardinal-dolan-brazen-liar.html[/url]
Back to the academics as advocates: all I can attest to is my own experience as a plant science major at UCD. I had no idea what the politics of any of my professors was, even in the unrestricted electives I took in the humanities, nor would it have made any difference that I can think of in my experience in college. My daughter is in international relations at a well-known east coast university (actually just graduated last week, now continuing for her masters). She has professors who are well-known, whose politics are quite obvious. It doesn’t make them better or worse teachers; that is a totally different issue. She had one professor make an anti-military remark, and since she’s a milvet she brought that to his attention. I believe it was a useful experience for both of them.
Should I brag? Sure, why not: [url]http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=8664063[/url]
“Are the Ten Commandments just natural moral intuition?”
My answer to this question is yes. As Don accurately pointed out, the rules layed out in the Ten Commandments are, in one form or another found as guiding principles across many religions and cultures. I would say that this argues strongly in favor of this assertion.
Don
Congratulations, and best of luck to your daughter !
Don: Sounds like your daughter justifies bragging. Congrats.
Related to your link from the Daily Beast…
Me:[i]Many on the left of politics seem to focus on the glass half empty and lament the wars fought, pedophile priests and the oppressed and marginalized non-conformers[/i]
Thanks for proving that point. And to be fair, let’s not forget to throw the pedophile teachers under the bus too. Because, of course, a few bad eggs make the entire chicken farm corrupt.
We will have to agree to disagree about the importance of religion.
You liberal science types sure work hard to reject religion as some unnecessary and embarrassing relic of the past. I think there is quite a drive to do a move on morality like Noam Chomsky did for the theory of universal grammar. It is really quiet amusing to read the “morality was designed by nature” theories from scientists like Marc Hauser… after having read the Screw Tape Letters written by C S Lewis explaining common moral tendencies as evidence of God. So, which theory is correct? Are examples of common morality explained by evolution or Intelligent Design? I certainly don’t know for sure. The only thing I do know is that C S Lewis’s explanation is more compelling, more heartwarming and more healing than the almost frantic and needy tone of scientists working hard to explain away something they obviously dislike.
One last thing… in Christianity there is one very important moral lesson I find lacking in many non-believers. That is the lesson of forgiveness. This might be one big fly in the secular left’s religion-has-no-benefits ointment as self-loathing, guilt and unresolved childhood issues seem to afflict them in record numbers. I ponder whether the drastic increase in psychological and emotional counseling corresponds with the drop in religious participation. Or, maybe we are just all evolving to be more depressed?
Related to liberal bias in education…
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/youngvoting.jpg[/img]
Study: [b]Why Professors are Liberal[/b]
[quote]Gross and Fosse’s paper focuses mostly on a study they conducted to explore why university professors, as a group, contain a higher percentage of self-described liberals than the American population at large. After sifting through data from the General Social Survey of opinions and social behaviors from 1974-2008, they concluded that at least a significant part of the answer was that academia “has acquired such a strong reputation for liberalism and secularism over the past thirty-five years, few politically- or religiously-conservative students, but many liberal and secular ones, have formed the aspiration to become professors.” Thus the gap remains unchanged. The paper also extends this theory as a possible explanation for gender imbalances in other professions, including nursing.[/quote]
[url]http://www.soci.ubc.ca/fileadmin/template/main/images/departments/soci/faculty/gross/why_are_professors_liberal.pdf[/url]
Makes sense.
There is a correlation and it is a problem.
So what are you proposing? Affirmative action for conservatives at universities?
“Frantic…needy…self-loathing, guilt and unresolved childhood issues….” Yeah, sure. You sure make a lot of unsubstantiated generalizations about people you disagree with.
As to C.S. Lewis, an explanation which requires the supernatural isn’t an explanation.
JB: [i]You liberal science types sure work hard to reject religion as some unnecessary and embarrassing relic of the past.[/i]
There you go again, generalizing thinking you have me and everyone else figured out. I value religion personally; I don’t think it’s necessary for me to justify or prove my religious beliefs scientifically. I don’t believe in foisting my religious beliefs on others or think that I am qualified to judge the souls of others. I believe there is a secular morality that governs our society (how else can can a country as diverse as ours survive), and that overlaps with religiously based morality, the Golden Rule, for example.
JB: [i]One last thing… in Christianity there is one very important moral lesson I find lacking in many non-believers. That is the lesson of forgiveness.[/i]
Non-believers are capable of forgiving. It is not a concept found only in Christianity.
I’m sure that a lot of non-believers could find a way to forgive you for judging them in this way.
Me: [i]”Frantic…needy…self-loathing, guilt and unresolved childhood issues….”[/i]
Don: [i]Yeah, sure. You sure make a lot of unsubstantiated generalizations about people you disagree with.”[/i]
Except for “unsubstantiated”, you are correct… especially when they all behave the same and say the same things.
Let me find the statistics that prove conservatives are generally happier, and also the statistics that many more people are seeking therapy. Of course therapists do not check and report the political leanings of their patients; but I suspect lower percentages are regular church-going believers.
Don: [i]As to C.S. Lewis, an explanation which requires the supernatural isn’t an explanation.[/i]
Well then Don, why have any conversation with you about Religion? These writing from C S Lewis were commissioned by the British government during the early years of WWII because of the rampant depression and hopelessness of the population dealing with yet another war and the possibility that evil would win. Maybe a scientist could have explained it better and done more good for humanity… right.
wdf1: [i]”Non-believers are capable of forgiving. It is not a concept found only in Christianity.[/i]
Of course, but it is also a skill that many lack and are in need of learning about and developing. AA actually does a pretty good job with this outside of religion. However, much of what AA teaches is lifted from what the Christian bible teaches.
[i]I’m sure that a lot of non-believers could find a way to forgive you for judging them in this way.[/i]
Ha! They should do that if it is good for them. I would prefer that they work on forgiving all people that have caused them material harm (including themselves), and then work on resolving their unhealthy emotional responses to actions and words that do not cause them material harm. But if they consider themselves materially harmed by my words, then forgiveness would be a beneficial thing for them. The lesson of forgiveness in Christianity benefits the forgiver, not the forgiven.
[i]”These writing from C S Lewis were commissioned by the British government during the early years of WWII…”
[/i]
I was not aware of that, and it wasn’t the history I remember. Mostly I thought it was a satire about totalitarian governments and corporate bureaucracies. Maybe you meant Mere Christianity.
[i]”These writing from C S Lewis were commissioned by the British government during the early years of WWII…”
[/i]
I was not aware of that, and it wasn’t the history I remember. Mostly I thought it was a satire about totalitarian governments and corporate bureaucracies. Maybe you meant Mere Christianity.
Dang! You are correct.
Refer back to my previous comment that I don’t have a good memory for details. It was “Mere Christianity”. It has been a long time since I read it.
But the points I was making are not affected by my memory fault… at least this time.
Dang! You are correct.
Refer back to my previous comment that I don’t have a good memory for details. It was “Mere Christianity”. It has been a long time since I read it.
But the points I was making are not affected by my memory fault… at least this time.
wdf1: [i]”I believe there is a secular morality that governs our society (how else can can a country as diverse as ours survive), and that overlaps with religiously based morality, the Golden Rule, for example.”[/i]
From Wikipedia:
[quote]The “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic”[28] from the Parliament of the World’s Religions[29][30] (1993) proclaimed the Golden Rule (“We must treat others as we wish others to treat us”) as the common principle for many religions.[31] The Initial Declaration was signed by 143 respected leaders from all of the world’s major faiths, including Baha’i Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian.[31][32] In the folklore of several cultures{31} the Golden Rule is depicted by the allegory of the long spoons.[/quote]
The challenge for the secular team is proving that common morality is not evidence of God that is promulgated by religious teachings and the adoption of religious-based morality into culture, society and systems of governance. There are examples of isolated tribes that were cannibalistic until they changed their ways after Christian missionaries arrived… that would seem to break the Golden Rule, don’t you think?
wdf1: [i]”I believe there is a secular morality that governs our society (how else can can a country as diverse as ours survive), and that overlaps with religiously based morality, the Golden Rule, for example.”[/i]
From Wikipedia:
[quote]The “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic”[28] from the Parliament of the World’s Religions[29][30] (1993) proclaimed the Golden Rule (“We must treat others as we wish others to treat us”) as the common principle for many religions.[31] The Initial Declaration was signed by 143 respected leaders from all of the world’s major faiths, including Baha’i Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian.[31][32] In the folklore of several cultures{31} the Golden Rule is depicted by the allegory of the long spoons.[/quote]
The challenge for the secular team is proving that common morality is not evidence of God that is promulgated by religious teachings and the adoption of religious-based morality into culture, society and systems of governance. There are examples of isolated tribes that were cannibalistic until they changed their ways after Christian missionaries arrived… that would seem to break the Golden Rule, don’t you think?
[i]”The challenge for the secular team is proving that common morality is not evidence of God…”
[/i]
Can’t prove the unprovable.
[i]”The challenge for the secular team is proving that common morality is not evidence of God…”
[/i]
Can’t prove the unprovable.
Jeff
“Of course therapists do not check and report the political leanings of their patients; but I suspect lower percentages are regular church-going believers. “
Very interesting point of view. I have two thoughts about this. First, it is also true that pastors/priests/rabbis/imams….., do not check and report the political leanings of their parishioners, who at least in some congregations are pressured to adhere to the groups system of beliefs or at least not voice any opposition to it. And therefore, at least in some communities ( such as the one in which I was raised) attendance at some religious institution is necessary for one’s economic and social survival regardless of what one truly believes.
The second point is that the pastor, or some other designated member of the congregation frequently performs the same function as a therapist does in the secular world. This is not an indication that individuals within the group do not need psychological support, just that the name of the provider is different within the religious context than in the secular context.
Jeff
“Of course therapists do not check and report the political leanings of their patients; but I suspect lower percentages are regular church-going believers. “
Very interesting point of view. I have two thoughts about this. First, it is also true that pastors/priests/rabbis/imams….., do not check and report the political leanings of their parishioners, who at least in some congregations are pressured to adhere to the groups system of beliefs or at least not voice any opposition to it. And therefore, at least in some communities ( such as the one in which I was raised) attendance at some religious institution is necessary for one’s economic and social survival regardless of what one truly believes.
The second point is that the pastor, or some other designated member of the congregation frequently performs the same function as a therapist does in the secular world. This is not an indication that individuals within the group do not need psychological support, just that the name of the provider is different within the religious context than in the secular context.
Jeff
“and then work on resolving their unhealthy emotional responses to actions and words that do not cause them material harm.”
And would you include in this group those religious folks who “feel” threatened by gay marriage ( for example) even though it would be of no material harm to them ?
Jeff
“and then work on resolving their unhealthy emotional responses to actions and words that do not cause them material harm.”
And would you include in this group those religious folks who “feel” threatened by gay marriage ( for example) even though it would be of no material harm to them ?
Jeff
“There is a correlation and it is a problem.”
The graph you have shown is only a problem if you believe that this country is too far too the left politically and socially. By your own previously quoted statistics, I see this as a strongly positive trend being that the population already identifies itself as significantly skewed to the conservative side. This would only seem to me to be restoring a balance. As a matter of fact, this is graph is one of the most positive things I have seen in your recent posts ; )
Jeff
“There is a correlation and it is a problem.”
The graph you have shown is only a problem if you believe that this country is too far too the left politically and socially. By your own previously quoted statistics, I see this as a strongly positive trend being that the population already identifies itself as significantly skewed to the conservative side. This would only seem to me to be restoring a balance. As a matter of fact, this is graph is one of the most positive things I have seen in your recent posts ; )
medwoman:
[i]”And would you include in this group those religious folks who “feel” threatened by gay marriage ( for example) even though it would be of no material harm to them?”[/i]
There is belief that it can cause material harm to children of gay couples in that their upbringing would lack exposure to traditional gender roles. This, and my opinion that equal-rights civil unions do not cause material harm to gays, make up the complete basis for my (and many others’) lack of support for gay marriage. Note that I do not want to go around again seeing links to all these studies done by the friends of the gay rights movement that “prove” that children of gays end up the same. There has not been enough studies, there has not been enough kids studied and they are not studying the right things.
I don’t support denying gays the right to legally marry purely based on religious grounds. However, I do support the rights of religious people to reject acceptance of gay marriage being the same as traditional marriage. I absolutely support the rights of private organizations to refuse to recognize gay marriage as the same.
[i]”this is graph is one of the most positive things I have seen in your recent posts”[/i]
Of course you would think that!
I would accept it too except that it provides a strong indication that brainwashing has been occurring in the education system (maybe incidental brainwashing, but still brainwashing).
medwoman:
[i]”And would you include in this group those religious folks who “feel” threatened by gay marriage ( for example) even though it would be of no material harm to them?”[/i]
There is belief that it can cause material harm to children of gay couples in that their upbringing would lack exposure to traditional gender roles. This, and my opinion that equal-rights civil unions do not cause material harm to gays, make up the complete basis for my (and many others’) lack of support for gay marriage. Note that I do not want to go around again seeing links to all these studies done by the friends of the gay rights movement that “prove” that children of gays end up the same. There has not been enough studies, there has not been enough kids studied and they are not studying the right things.
I don’t support denying gays the right to legally marry purely based on religious grounds. However, I do support the rights of religious people to reject acceptance of gay marriage being the same as traditional marriage. I absolutely support the rights of private organizations to refuse to recognize gay marriage as the same.
[i]”this is graph is one of the most positive things I have seen in your recent posts”[/i]
Of course you would think that!
I would accept it too except that it provides a strong indication that brainwashing has been occurring in the education system (maybe incidental brainwashing, but still brainwashing).
There is a correlation, but the causation might be related to the increasing conservatism of the Republican Party:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/youngvoting.jpg[/img]
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/nominate-house_medians_custom.jpg[/img]
Source for second chart: [url]http://voteview.com/blog/[/url]
Particularly on social issues, today’s GOP is further right than younger voters.
There is a correlation, but the causation might be related to the increasing conservatism of the Republican Party:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/youngvoting.jpg[/img]
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/nominate-house_medians_custom.jpg[/img]
Source for second chart: [url]http://voteview.com/blog/[/url]
Particularly on social issues, today’s GOP is further right than younger voters.
JB: [i]The challenge for the secular team is proving that common morality is not evidence of God that is promulgated by religious teachings and the adoption of religious-based morality into culture, society and systems of governance.[/i]
Plato, Confucious, and Buddha all state versions of the Golden Rule, and are more philosophically (secular) based.
This is by my genetics professor, Dr. Francisco Ayala: [url]http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.2/9015.full[/url]
“I have distinguished between moral behavior—judging some actions as good, others as evil—and moral codes—the precepts or norms according to which actions are judged. Moral behavior, I have proposed, is a biological attribute of H. sapiens, because it is a necessary consequence of our biological makeup, namely our high intelligence. But moral codes, I argue, are not products of biological evolution but rather of cultural evolution.”
…
“it is worth noticing that the legal and political systems that govern human societies, as well as the belief systems held by religion, are themselves outcomes of cultural evolution, as it has eventuated over human history, particularly over the last few millennia.”
” I would accept it too except that it provides a strong indication that brainwashing has been occurring in the education system (maybe incidental brainwashing, but still brainwashing).”
What you call “brainwashing”, I call a better balance of ideas rather than a one sided world perspective which the majority of us ( according to your own numbers ) absorb uncritically at home.