Atheist Elite College.

Turtwig

(Like my daily mail style headline?)

The story :

University lecturers and students reacted with dismay on Sunday after a group of leading British academics took a step towards the establishment of an elite US-style university system in the UK by launching a new private college offering £18,000-a-year courses.

AC Grayling, a professor of philosophy at the universities of London and Oxford, will welcome next year the first students to the New College of the Humanities to study for degrees in English, philosophy, history, economics and law taught by academics from Harvard, Princeton, Oxford and Cambridge.

There is a starry lineup of professorial talent: Richard Dawkins will teach evolutionary biology and science literacy; Niall Ferguson will lecture on economics and economic history; and Steven Pinker will teach philosophy and psychology.

Inspired in part by the business model of American Ivy League universities where $40,000 (£24,000) annual fees are not unusual, New College will cost double the maximum tuition fee allowed in government-funded universities. It is set up to deliver a profit to its shareholders who include the professors and a team of wealthy businessmen who have bankrolled the plan.

"At £18,000 a go, it seems it won't be the very brightest but those with the deepest pockets who are afforded the chance," said Sally Hunt, general secretary of the lecturers' association, the University and Colleges Union.

"The launch of this college highlights the government's failure to protect art and humanities and is further proof that its university funding plans will entrench inequality within higher education."

Grayling said the decision to set up New College came after the government cut subsidies to humanities and social science subjects and introduced increased competition by allowing universities to charge annual tuition fees of up to £9,000.

He admitted the business model might seem unusual for a group of professors who are, for the most part, "pink around the gills and a little bit left of centre", but he said government cuts meant going private was the only way to provide a high-quality humanities education and he predicted more universities would go private.

"It is the economic reality," he said. "The £9,000 cap is completely unsustainable. The true cost is way more and that ceiling is going to have to be burst. Other universities might also think 'either we sink or go independent'. Almost all of [the professors signed up] have served our time with decades in public sector higher education and we have seen it get more and more difficult. It is quite a struggle now to see into the future with how we can cope with these cuts. Either you stand on the sidelines deploring what is happening or you jump in and do something about it."

Other teachers signed up include Sir David Cannadine, a history lecturer at Princeton; Ronald Dworkin QC, a leading constitutional lawyer teaching at University College London and New York University; and Steve Jones, a leading geneticist. Lawrence Krauss, professor of earth and space exploration and physics at Arizona state university, who has advised Barack Obama on science policy, will teach cosmology.

The college sets out to "inspire the next generation of lawyers, journalists, financiers, politicians, civil servants, writers and teachers" and every student must take extra classes in ethics, science, literacy and logic and critical thinking as well as a course in practical professional skills.

Scholarships will be granted to one in five of the first 200 students. An endowment fund is being established to try to increase that ratio to one in three.

Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, said the move showed that "an education in humanities from some of the leading thinkers in the world will be restricted to the richest" and that academics would be removed from the public system.

"This institution has been created as a reaction to the government's swingeing cuts to higher education funding that have seen all teaching funding removed from many humanities subjects," he said. "If the government does not hit the brakes on this rushed reform and reverse the cuts to funding, the UK's currently world-leading public universities will be irreparably damaged."

Gareth Thomas, Labour's universities spokesman, commended Grayling for his initiative, but added: "It is a sad reflection of the scale of government cuts in higher education that it is taking a private initiative to drive new investment in arts, humanities and social sciences courses.

"When independent experts are warning that 80% cuts in funding are likely to lead to large numbers of humanities courses being axed I worry that high fees will deter many of the brightest and best from studying those arts, English and humanities courses that remain."

The college aims to attract candidates with at least three A grades at A-level with the promise of more direct teaching than at traditional universities. The student-teacher ratio will be better than 10 to one and there will be 12 to 13 hours' contact with teachers each week.

Graduates will come away with a degree from the University of London and a separate diploma from the college to reflect the additional course that includes practical professional skills such as financial literacy, teamwork, presentation and strategy.

One of the backers is Charles Watson, chairman of the City PR firm Financial Dynamics. He said: "Higher education in the UK must evolve if it is to offer the best quality experience for students and safeguard our future economic and intellectual wealth. New College offers a different model – one that brings additional, private sector funding into higher education in the humanities when it is most needed, and combines scholarships and tuition fees."

Grayling said the organisation had raised "a very significant" amount of money, thought to be more than £5m, to fund the college .

One third is owned by Grayling and the 13 other founding professors, while shares are also owned by a group of wealthy businessmen. They include Jeremy Gibbs, former chief executive of specialist venture capital consultancy, Matthew Batstone, former marketing chief of the Economist Group and a trustee at Bedales, a £30,000-a-year boarding school, and Roy Brown, the founder of Metier Management Systems which pioneered computer project management systems in the 1970s and 1980s.

Intense degree

The professors at New College are promising an intense, three-year education in exchange for £54,000. Before they have even got to the library or started writing an essay, students will be expected to attend at least 13 hours a week of lectures, one-to-one tutorials and seminars.

They will not only be expected to master their chosen subject, whether law, economics and economic history, or a comination of history, English literature and philosophy, but each of them must take lessons in science literacy from Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones, applied ethics from Peter Singer as well as a module in logic and critical thinking.

The big-name professors, who include Niall Ferguson and Linda Colley, will together give 110 lectures a year, which any paid-up student can attend. You could drop in to see Niall Ferguson expound on economic history in the 20th century while history professors Sir David Cannadine or Linda Colley will talk on course subjects ranging from "The birth of western Christendom AD 300-1215" to "Material world: culture and environment in the last millennium". Law lectures will come from Ronald Dworkin QC and Adrian Zuckerman.

Every student will have a one-to-one tutorial in their main subject each week in which they will be grilled on their latest essay, though these will not be conducted by the star names, but by a professional teaching staff that is currently being recruited.

And that is not all. A further course in professional skills is supposed to give you an edge in the job market and features sessions on reading balance sheets, corporate governance, leadership, marketing and sales and entrepreneurship.

Tbh, I don't I like this. I'll admit I'm a romanicist but I do really believe education should be accessible to all walks of society. Either way, insert your usual anti-atheist stuff here.
Is this a response to Religious themed Universities?

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

(Like my daily mail style headline?)

The story :


Tbh, I don't I like this. I'll admit I'm a romanicist but I do really believe education should be accessible to all walks of society. Either way, insert your usual anti-atheist stuff here.
Is this a response to Religious themed Universities?

Education is accessible, this is one college. I don't see the problem really.

I like the sound of:

every student must take extra classes in ethics, science, literacy and logic and critical thinking as well as a course in practical professional skills.

We should have that in more of ours

liamw

Education is still accessible though
This is just introducing an option.

I don't see the problem with this either. This would be a fantasic school!

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I fail to see the connection to atheism, other than the fact Dawkins happens to be teaching science at this school.

Galvasean

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I fail to see the connection to atheism, other than the fact Dawkins happens to be teaching science at this school.

Yes. Heaven forbid a leading evolutionary biologist would teach evolutionary biology.

raah!

It seems likely that their lecture courses will be heavily biased towards a certain ideology, given the lecturers involved. You could describe this as a reaction to religious colleges, but If something like this ever did pop up, you could be fairly certain that at any one time there would be more atheists in the religious colleges than there would be theists in this thing.

I find the whole business utterly repulsive.

eoin5

Theyre all not getting enough money from selling books I guess...

Monty Burnz

raah! wrote: »

It seems likely that their lecture courses will be heavily biased towards a certain ideology, given the lecturers involved.

What is this 'certain ideology' that you do not name?

raah! wrote: »

You could describe this as a reaction to religious colleges, but If something like this ever did pop up, you could be fairly certain that at any one time there would be more atheists in the religious colleges than there would be theists in this thing.

So what? Let them come, or let them stay away. Scientific facts will remain so whether they choose to study them there or not.

raah!

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What is this 'certain ideology' that you do not name?

Materialism, naturalism anti-theism etc.

So what? Let them come, or let them stay away. Scientific facts will remain so whether they choose to study them there or not.

The "so what" is that this is just another instance of creating a place where certain social classes are unwelcome. The likes of A.C Grayling would justify this sort of thing by saying "but the inquisition". Two inquisitions don't make a right however. That second sentence is stupid.

Galvasean

raah! wrote: »

Two inquisitions don't make a right however. That second sentence is stupid.

Setting up of a purely materialistic college is not the same ball park as an Inquisition. Heck, it's not the same sport.

liamw

raah! wrote: »

Materialism, naturalism anti-theism etc.

As in, they teach things that are supported by science?

I doubt anti-theism is on the curriculum :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz

raah! wrote: »

The "so what" is that this is just another instance of creating a place where certain social classes are unwelcome. The likes of A.C Grayling would justify this sort of thing by saying "but the inquisition". Two inquisitions don't make a right however. That second sentence is stupid.

Nonsense. People of any 'social class' are welcome, I presume, if they are willing to pay.

Is your objection here on the grounds of it not being a good college, or on the grounds that it will be a good college but not everyone can get into it?

raah!

Setting up of a purely materialistic college is not the same ball park as an Inquisition. Heck, it's not the same sport.

I didn't mean to suggest that. But I was merely drawing attention to the fact that A.C Grayling has before said that rather than engaging in actual debate with religous people they should be mocked, and repressed by the secular majority. This is ok because if the religious people were in control like in the past there would be an inquisition. (this comment was from a site called "the maverick philosopher", not something I read regularly...)

I would say that Religous people or indeed any people today are in a different ball park from people in those times where everyone was flying across europe chopping each other up with swords.

Monty Burnz

raah! wrote: »

I didn't mean to suggest that. But I was merely drawing attention to the fact that A.C Grayling has before said that rather than engaging in actual debate with religous people they should be mocked, and repressed by the secular majority.

I can't say that that sounds like a good idea. As much as you might be wasting your time arguing facts with people who prefer a faith, 'mocking and repressing' them sounds a bit too much like the kind of oppression that religions tend to indulge in when they are top dog in society. That smacks of hypocrisy.

Disclaimer - I haven't actually read Graying's argument, I'm just reacting to what raah is saying.

raah!

liamw wrote: »

As in, they teach things that are supported by science?

I doubt anti-theism is on the curriculum :rolleyes:

Liamw, do you see how the statement "the only real things are those that are physically measurable" cannot be one "supported by science" since no amount of physical measurements will tell you that there are no other real things other than those that you are measuring?

But this is completely irrelevant, all that was important there is that those few fellows share many ideological views in common, and despite what you have been made to believe, these are not the objective, unquestionable truth.

Nonsense. People of any 'social class' are welcome, I presume, if they are willing to pay.

Of course they wouldn't be officially unwelcome. It's more like black people going to a school which says "Black people are an inferior race" and still lets them enter.

Dades

I'd say there'll be some amount of trust-fund twats in that college.

Hey, it's a free economy and some people want to set a college up as a business and sell it on a particular ethos, why not.

We don't ban Michelin star restaurants because most of us plebs can't eat there. :pac:

raah!

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I can't say that that sounds like a good idea. As much as you might be wasting your time arguing facts with people who prefer a faith, 'mocking and repressing' them sounds a bit too much like the kind of oppression that religions tend to indulge in when they are top dog in society. That smacks of hypocrisy.

Disclaimer - I haven't actually read Graying's argument, I'm just reacting to what raah is saying.

Here's the thing:

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/02/the-recent-dennettplantinga-a-p-a-debate-and-the-question-of-tone-in-philosophy.html

The article itself is kind of nonsense. But here is A.C Grayling's response:

As one of the "worst examples" of those who mock today's derivatives of the ancient superstitions, and who decries the effect that their more extreme followers have on the welfare of many - whether by terrorist attacks or the suppression of the rights of women - I should like to remind you that whenever the religious are in the ascendent - think Torquemada in Spain or the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan for egregious examples - they deal with their opponents very differently from how Dan Dennett and I do. We argue and - yes - mock; they kill. It would be a matter for amusement at the difference between the squealing and complaining of today's faithful at being mocked, and how they once behaved, if there were not a more serious point behind it all: that we do not want the faithful to get back in charge for this very reason.

Again, the people he mocks would be philosophers/theologians or whatever in oxford or whereever he mocks them. It's unlikely that if these people were in charge that they would do an inquisition. There may be some religious people who would, just as there may be some deluded little teenager who took the things Grayling or Dawkin's say too seriously who would do the same.

Monty Burnz

raah! wrote: »

Of course they wouldn't be officially unwelcome. It's more like black people going to a school which says "Black people are an inferior race" and still lets them enter.

So you think that one of the principles of this college is some sort of social darwinism? Or what?

Incidentally, I tend to regard this 'class' idea as nonsense these days, given the mobility we are allowed. Your class, to whatever extent is exists, is purely determined by your aspirations. If you don't want to bother with education, you'll find yourself doing some sort of manual labour, or perhaps a skilled trade like plumbing. If you are interested in working in IT, or business, or whatever, you'll probably go to college.

By that definition, if you are applying for a college at all, you are not 'working class'. I have a friend who works in IT, went to college with him. He has a degree and a masters. He thinks he's working class, because his parents were. As if it's a genetic predisposition or something.

liah

The the thing I don't like about this is that this is the kind of education most people need, yet only an elite few are able to get it, which just makes the intellectual divide between the general populace and the well-off elites even bigger. Which solves approximately.. nothing.

I would kill to study there.

Monty Burnz

liah wrote: »

I would kill to study there.

Save yourself a lot of trouble and just read the books these guys publish. It's all in there.

What a lot of people don't realise is that there isn't a huge difference between the standard of undergraduate education you will get at a top-10 university like Harvard or Cambridge, and a top-150 odd university like UCC or UCD.

Where the top-10 universities distinguish themselves is in the research fields - the top academics in their respective areas churning out the new research at the cutting edge. This is of little real relevance to the guys studying at bachelor - or even masters - level.

raah!

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So you think that one of the principles of this college is some sort of social darwinism? Or what?

I'm saying that the college run by such people will most likely be openly anti-theist in terms of ethics morality etc. This means what I said above.

With regard to class, I didn't necessarily need to use that word, we could use group, and it would make no difference. I wasn't talking about working class middle class anyway, I thought that was clear. The group are religious people. You can make same the same arguments, which are often made: that it's ok to disciminate against someone if they are able to change that factor against which you are discriminating. I'm not convinced by that argument.

I would also question why it would be necessary for someone learning science to learn to think critically. I imagine they would pick up such abilities before ever coming to college, and surely have the supplemented by their course of study. The same is true for logic, unless they are planning on teaching them courses in formal logic in their spare time.

Monty Burnz

raah! wrote: »

With regard to class, I didn't necessarily need to use that word, we could use group, and it would make no difference. I wasn't talking about working class middle class anyway, I thought that was clear.

Ah, I get you now.

raah! wrote: »

I would also question why it would be necessary for someone learning science to learn to think critically. I imagine they would pick up such abilities before ever coming to college, and surely have the supplemented by their course of study. The same is true for logic, unless they are planning on teaching them courses in formal logic in their spare time.

You would be astonished at the lack of critical thinking that abounds. Observe the property bubble in Ireland - it was very, very obvious - but how many took heed of it? It should be taught in secondary schools. There is some sort of effort at secondary level to teach students how to read and understand a text, to see what the writer is saying indirectly and so forth, but it's clearly not even close to enough.

Students learning critical thinking in school? Doesn't sound likely to me

raah!

Well I could tell you openly, that I would probably fall for this same economics bubble. While I'm perfectly confidant in my ability to think critically I am not so confident in my knowledge of economics. I think everyone is capable of perfect logic, if they are careful, but just that people often have very confused premises and basic beliefs. These basic beliefs may then be contradictory, but this is not just because the person hasn't be thinking critically, it's just that they haven't been thinking at all.

At some level I really don't think it's a possible thing to teach people. For example, in secondary school we did do a bit of logic and what have you in english, and we certainly did some in maths (though now that I think of it, secondary school maths was very low on the proofs, it may be only college level maths which teachs you logic). And even in this college they have "critical thinking" and "logic".

If we say critical thinking is applied logic, and that you need to be taught to apply your logic in each case. Then people will treat this "critical thinking" like just another exam you have to pass. They will remember "critical thinking" as that collection of things in a text book. They may indeed be able to remember when certain examples were taught to them in the class, but it doesn't follow then that they will be able to think properly everywhere.

Furthermore, you could continue from here and say "science is critically thinking about nature", so what more do they want people to critically think about? Tbh, in my dislike for Ace and my skepticism for this entire enterprise I wouldn't be suprised if this "critical thinking" consisted solely in a series of arguments against religion.

Anyway, it seems we have gone somewhat off track, and I'll not derail malt's thread further.

Mark200

One of the guys involved in setting up this University was on Sky News earlier, and when asked about its exclusivity he said that about 30% of places will be allocated on a scholarship basis, rather than based on ability to pay. If that is the case then I think that's fair enough.

If it was completely based on ability to pay then I wouldn't be all that supportive of the idea. You can call it free market etc etc, but the University would be taking the best lecturers and researchers out of public institutions.

Monty Burnz

raah! wrote: »

I think everyone is capable of perfect logic, if they are careful, but just that people often have very confused premises and basic beliefs.

In the Socratic Method sense, you are probably correct.

raah! wrote: »

These basic beliefs may then be contradictory, but this is not just because the person hasn't be thinking critically, it's just that they haven't been thinking at all.

Very good point.

raah! wrote: »

If we say critical thinking is applied logic, and that you need to be taught to apply your logic in each case. Then people will treat this "critical thinking" like just another exam you have to pass. They will remember "critical thinking" as that collection of things in a text book. They may indeed be able to remember when certain examples were taught to them in the class, but it doesn't follow then that they will be able to think properly everywhere.

I understand the danger you are referring to, but I think you would be surprised. Speaking only from personal experience, a lot of stuff that I know and apply now, I don't clearly remember learning, or have any sense of how it became part of my way of thinking. It just slipped in there. But definitely lectures I sat through in college in philosophy and the like have shaped (deepened) my thinking, even though at the time I didn't invest a whole lot of intellectual energy in the subject.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

I'm saying that the college run by such people will most likely be openly anti-theist in terms of ethics morality etc. This means what I said above.

I should hope so. Theistic morality is a very poor source of morality, what with its driving force being illogical, unrealistic and immeasurable absolute punishments and absolute rewards.

raah! wrote: »

I would also question why it would be necessary for someone learning science to learn to think critically. I imagine they would pick up such abilities before ever coming to college, and surely have the supplemented by their course of study. The same is true for logic, unless they are planning on teaching them courses in formal logic in their spare time.

In a perfect world you would right. unfortunately you dont much critical thinking or logic to pass the "learn by rote" style exams that make up the education system. That and its no harm for people to continue learning more and more complex critical thinking and logic as they mature.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Furthermore, you could continue from here and say "science is critically thinking about nature", so what more do they want people to critically think about?

Nothing, because there is nothing more than nature. However many people dont realise that. They think that science stops when you take the lab coat off. That all the critical thinking and logic they apply to scientific experiments and maths doesn't just disappear in favour of some easy answer.

raah! wrote: »

Tbh, in my dislike for Ace and my skepticism for this entire enterprise I wouldn't be suprised if this "critical thinking" consisted solely in a series of arguments against religion.

Religion is one, if not the biggest area where critical thinking is abandoned in favour easy answers, so it would have to be discussed, although along with other common areas lacking in critical thinking (alternative medicine, vaccine hysteria etc).

Turtwig

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nothing, because there is nothing more than nature. However many people dont realise that.

How confident are you of this assertion?

Also, I don't think everyone applies critical thinking to maths or science. The amount of papers I've read where a conclusion is clearly not supported by the data presented is staggering.:(

Turtwig

raah! wrote: »

Tbh, in my dislike for Ace and my skepticism for this entire enterprise I wouldn't be suprised if this "critical thinking" consisted solely in a series of arguments against religion.

That's kinda my fear of this whole system. I guess the obvious question is will Grayling and Co. allow Theology as a subject to be studied if they got the funding?:)

RussellTuring

raah! wrote: »

Well I could tell you openly, that I would probably fall for this same economics bubble. While I'm perfectly confidant in my ability to think critically I am not so confident in my knowledge of economics. I think everyone is capable of perfect logic, if they are careful, but just that people often have very confused premises and basic beliefs. These basic beliefs may then be contradictory, but this is not just because the person hasn't be thinking critically, it's just that they haven't been thinking at all.

I agree with a lot of that except I don't really see a distinction between not thinking critically and not thinking at all, in this instance. In the property example, people did think but assumed that the vocal experts knew more than them and so weren't critical of the bubble.

At some level I really don't think it's a possible thing to teach people. For example, in secondary school we did do a bit of logic and what have you in english, and we certainly did some in maths (though now that I think of it, secondary school maths was very low on the proofs, it may be only college level maths which teachs you logic). And even in this college they have "critical thinking" and "logic".

The facts that you might not have learned enough or that it is not trivial to learn do not mean that it's not possible to teach people.

If we say critical thinking is applied logic, and that you need to be taught to apply your logic in each case. Then people will treat this "critical thinking" like just another exam you have to pass. They will remember "critical thinking" as that collection of things in a text book. They may indeed be able to remember when certain examples were taught to them in the class, but it doesn't follow then that they will be able to think properly everywhere.

That's a good point and one need look no further than the teaching of science at Leaving Cert to find an example. Students are taught rote learning of science with little focus on critical thinking or original research. However, that is more a failure of the teaching methods than the subject. Once I learn something properly, I don't just remember it as a self-contained fact I learned at some point in my life; I use it and apply it to situations I would never have expected, whether I realise it or not at the time.

Furthermore, you could continue from here and say "science is critically thinking about nature", so what more do they want people to critically think about? Tbh, in my dislike for Ace and my skepticism for this entire enterprise I wouldn't be suprised if this "critical thinking" consisted solely in a series of arguments against religion.

I don't think it would be that popular if it did, to be honest. I wouldn't spend£54,000 and three years on a law degree if I was told I had to have a certain stance on religion to go with it.

Personally, I don't like the high cost of this university since it would exclude quite a few potential students but with the scholarships available and my belief that these classes are a good idea for the courses with which they are offered, maybe it has merit.

liamw

raah! wrote: »

Liamw, do you see how the statement "the only real things are those that are physically measurable" cannot be one "supported by science" since no amount of physical measurements will tell you that there are no other real things other than those that you are measuring?

But this is completely irrelevant, all that was important there is that those few fellows share many ideological views in common, and despite what you have been made to believe, these are not the objective, unquestionable truth.

Don't strawman please. I do not believe that scientific (materialistic & naturalistic to you) truths are 'unquestionable'. The complete opposite in fact; rigorous questioning, peer review, the scientific method is our best methodology to determine what should be taught as 'truth' in schools.

I really don't see what your proposing as a better option; that we just teach every old whacko theory that comes to mind? It's not really practical is it?

Dave!

raah! wrote: »

It seems likely that their lecture courses will be heavily biased towards a certain ideology, given the lecturers involved. You could describe this as a reaction to religious colleges, but If something like this ever did pop up, you could be fairly certain that at any one time there would be more atheists in the religious colleges than there would be theists in this thing.

I find the whole business utterly repulsive.

Accepting all of your premises for the sake of argument -- do you find faith schools repulsive too?

Mark Hamill

Malty_T wrote: »

How confident are you of this assertion?

I've yet to find any evidence that its wrong.

Malty_T wrote: »

Also, I don't think everyone applies critical thinking to maths or science. The amount of papers I've read where a conclusion is clearly not supported by the data presented is staggering.:(

I was responding to raahs point about people supposing to learn critical thinking and logic in classes before they even reach third level by pointing out that many dont take it out of the classroom or lab. You are right though, many dont even bring it into the lab either. Either way, extra classes can only help imo.

Zillah

raah! wrote: »

Materialism

You mean science.

naturalism

Ohhhhh...you mean science.

anti-theism

This is an assumption. I imagine that criticisms of theism would fit into the philosophy courses, and that God will be brought into conversations about ethics, but you're condemning them for what I deem an unjustified assumption on your part. It is likely they will teach a broad foundation in philosophy, like all other such courses.


Also bear in mind, while you might consider "anti-theism" to be some sort of deviant or partisan position, there are those of us who consider it utterly ludicrous, and would welcome it being treated as such. Religious institutions have been feeding their worldview straight into the brains of the youth for centuries, I think it'd be pretty hypocritical to cry foul when a college for sceptics is founded.

MrPudding

liah wrote: »

The the thing I don't like about this is that this is the kind of education most people need, yet only an elite few are able to get it, which just makes the intellectual divide between the general populace and the well-off elites even bigger. Which solves approximately.. nothing.

I would kill to study there.

It is unfortunate that it takes a business consortium to get a college like this operational, but that is not the fault of the college.

This is similar to the charge levelled at Max Mosley about his libel actions. People argued that the law was not fair because only rich people could take advantage of it. His argument was that was not his fault, and as he did have the means to fight his case then why shouldn't he?

The fact that "normal" "ordinary" people won't, unless they get one of the apparently generous number of scholarships, be able to attend is not the fault of the college or those setting it up. Just because only rich people will be able to take advantage of it does not mean that nobody should be able to.

I don't like the idea of a widening intellectual divide either, but at the same time, I don't think the solution to that problem is necessarily to drag those lucky enough to be at the top down.

It would be great if everyone that wanted an education like this could have one, but the reality is they can't. The college are to blame for that. I sincerely hope the figures for the scholarships is correct and that they manage to sustain or even increase those numbers.

MrP

CerebralCortex

Malty_T wrote: »

How confident are you of this assertion?

Well the naturalist world view has a good track record of explaining every phenomenon we as sentient beings have come across given enough time and resources. Conciousness and intelligence are the next set of such "mysterious" phenomenon to be completely blown open by science/naturalism/materialism, if you ask me.

raah!

Zillah wrote: »

You mean science.
Ohhhhh...you mean science.

Neither of those things are science

This is an assumption. I imagine that criticisms of theism would fit into the philosophy courses, and that God will be brought into conversations about ethics, but you're condemning them for what I deem an unjustified assumption on your part. It is likely they will teach a broad foundation in philosophy, like all other such courses.

It may seem like an assumption if you quote it on its own like that. But it was clearly an inference from what the founders have said/done to what is likely to be amongst their motives.

liamw wrote: »

Don't strawman please. I do not believe that scientific (materialistic & naturalistic to you) truths are 'unquestionable'. The complete opposite in fact; rigorous questioning, peer review, the scientific method is our best methodology to determine what should be taught as 'truth' in schools.

I really don't see what your proposing as a better option; that we just teach every old whacko theory that comes to mind? It's not really practical is it?

As above, you should look up what materialism/naturalism actually is.

raah!

Dave! wrote: »

Accepting all of your premises for the sake of argument -- do you find faith schools repulsive too?

What I found repulsive about it was that if it were an "atheist" school, it would be one based solely around exclusion. While there may be religious schools which could be described as excluding atheists, their sole purpose is not to exclude a certain class of people. This is why I mentioned the relative proportions of atheists in religious colleges to theists that might attend this.

And if we are accepting all the premises and possibilities, then another difference between this school and a "faith school" (I can only think of seminaries in this category), then this school would get more repulsive points for purporting to just teaching "logic and critical thinking". Seminaries and the like openly teach religion, religion classes teach religion, this place teaches "science and critical thinking".

However, It's possible it will turn out to be just a nice private university (whose privateness is a separate worry). As I said, the thread title and the behaviour of the likes of Grayling create worries about this in my mind.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Neither of those things are science

In what way is science not just the observation and testing of materialism/naturalism?

strobe

I don't see the problem with it really. No one is going to be forced to attend the college, so if you have a problem with the 'ethos' (if there is one, which is an assumption) don't attend. It's not like we are talking about a primary school here where children will be lead astray. We are talking about adults. It's also not the case that if you don't have 18,000 then no third level education for you. State funded colleges still exist. If I have 18,000 to burn and would prefer to pay it to attend this place rather than UCL I don't think anyone should be able to stop me.

MrPudding

raah! wrote: »

What I found repulsive about it was that if it were an "atheist" school, it would be one based solely around exclusion. While there may be religious schools which could be described as excluding atheists, their sole purpose is not to exclude a certain class of people. This is why I mentioned the relative proportions of atheists in religious colleges to theists that might attend this.

And if we are accepting all the premises and possibilities, then another difference between this school and a "faith school" (I can only think of seminaries in this category), then this school would get more repulsive points for purporting to just teaching "logic and critical thinking". Seminaries and the like openly teach religion, religion classes teach religion, this place teaches "science and critical thinking".

However, It's possible it will turn out to be just a nice private university (whose privateness is a separate worry). As I said, the thread title and the behaviour of the likes of Grayling create worries about this in my mind.

it is a college staffed with a number of prominent atheists. Big deal. I don't see anywhere that people of faith will not be allowed to go, in fact, I would suspect anyone that can pay, and fulfils the entry requirements will be able to attend.

Why is it repulsive to teach logic and critical thinking? Is it simply because anyone would good logic and critical thinking skills tend to see religion for what it is? A ridiculous notion?

MrP

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In what way is science not just the observation and testing of materialism/naturalism?

In every way.

MrPudding wrote: »

Why is it repulsive to teach logic and critical thinking? Is it simply because anyone would good logic and critical thinking skills tend to see religion for what it is? A ridiculous notion?

I think I was fairly clear about the fact that the part I was referring to would be a college with an "ethos based on exclusion". Please don't quote my posts and then go on to misrepresent them. I don't know if it was deliberate, if it wasn't then I suggest you read them before responding to them.

MrPudding

raah! wrote: »

In every way.


I think I was fairly clear about the fact that the part I was referring to would be a college with an "ethos based on exclusion". Please don't quote my posts and then go on to misrepresent them. I don't know if it was deliberate, if it wasn't then I suggest you read them before responding to them.

Where's is the exclusion?

MrP

raah!

Explained in the post you quoted but clearly misunderstood.

MrPudding

raah! wrote: »

Explained in the post you quoted but clearly misunderstood.

First thing. Thread title aside, is there any indication it is an atheist college? Second thing, even if we allow that it is an Atheist college how would that be exclusionary but a faith school not?

MrP

Waking-Dreams

raah! wrote: »

I think I was fairly clear about the fact that the part I was referring to would be a college with an "ethos based on exclusion".

Listen, it’s a college that’s obviously going to exclude anyone who happens to fall into any of the following categories:

‘Reiki’ practitioners
‘UFOlogists’
‘Alternative Medicine’ enthusiasts

and whatever other people who hold deep religious beliefs.

It’s not up to the college to pander to every kind of wacky belief just because they might exclude people that are emotionally invested in them. Call it an ‘ethos based on exclusion’ all you want but as Mr. P says, faith schools are happy to exclude so why the double standard?

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In what way is science not just the observation and testing of materialism/naturalism?

We have to be careful with suffixes. Scientists observe nature, but naturalism is a philosophical stance, and is not tested by science. Naturalism is on solid philosophical ground, if it is defined carefully, but it won't be tested by scientists.

raah! wrote:

What I found repulsive about it was that if it were an "atheist" school, it would be one based solely around exclusion.

It wouldn't be based around exclusion. It is based on the emphasis of materialism, naturalism, and humanism.

raah!

Well, as I said, drawing inferences from the behaviour of the likes of Grayling, if his new atheism is going to influence how he runs the college, it may well be manifest in more ways than simply emphasising materialism naturalism etc.

There is a difference between a college with lots of naturalist philosophers who would prefer to teach naturalism and one run by someone like this who makes it a policy. But as has been stated, hopefully it won't be an officially "Atheist College".

What an "Atheist college" would be would depend on what you think atheism entails (or the particular atheism of the college). These days the fashionable view is that "atheism is just a lack", so this would a college which is little more than a "no religion college".

@Walking Dreams - I believe I have adressed the difference between this (worried prediction of what such a college may turn into in the hands of such founding members) and "faith schools" in this post and the same question was asked of me by Dave.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

In every way.

And yet not in any way you can explain?

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

We have to be careful with suffixes. Scientists observe nature, but naturalism is a philosophical stance, and is not tested by science. Naturalism is on solid philosophical ground, if it is defined carefully, but it won't be tested by scientists.

I may be wrong, I'm getting this from the wiki page on naturalism, but isn't naturalism just the basic assumption that science has to make in order to proceed? That only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world? Wouldn't every single scientific experiment, test that assumption?