Atheist Elite College.

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?

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

Well, as I said, drawing inferences from the behaviour of the likes of Grayling, if his new atheism

In what way is his atheism new?

raah! wrote: »

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".

I thought the policy of Graylings college would critical thinking and logic?

Turtwig

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In what way is his atheism new?

One could probably make the generalisation that some of today's atheists have read the four horsemen's books, regurgitate their arguments and use the threaded line of science and reason, science vs religion. These would be the new atheists. It's a generalisation but I think it's a valid one.

Mark Hamill

Malty_T wrote: »

One could probably make the generalisation that some of today's atheists have read the four horsemen's books, regurgitate their arguments and use the threaded line of science and reason, science vs religion. These would be the new atheists. It's a generalisation but I think it's a valid one.

It might be strictly accurate, but, if its an honest distinction, it seems pretty meaningless. There will always be new atheistic books with new arguments (well as long as religion exists), so people will always read them and use their arguments. Might as well call catholics "new catholics" every time there is a new pope.

IMO,its just another empty, insulting label, like "militant atheist", that theists use to emotively argue against atheism without actually offering any salient points. The implication is that these new atheists are simply mindless sheep, following a fad and regurgitating arguments without understanding what they are saying. The immense hypocrisy aside, its always offered as a de facto truth with no evidence as to it being true or actually making a difference to the arguments validity.

Actually, since when is arguing against religion with science and reason that new?

Tim Robbins

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?

I am with you there. It's elitist.

ShooterSF

Malty_T wrote: »

One could probably make the generalisation that some of today's atheists have read the four horsemen's books, regurgitate their arguments and use the threaded line of science and reason, science vs religion. These would be the new atheists. It's a generalisation but I think it's a valid one.

If you were to accept this generalisation would Grayling even fit it?

Rev Hellfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am with you there. It's elitist.

Nothing wrong with using the financial resources you have at your disposal to ensure your offspring get a better rung on the ladder.

Sounds like an excellent idea. As for it being a 'atheist' college it sounds more likely to be simply one grounded in science and reason. I'm sure theists who met the fiscal requirements would be welcome as well.

Turtwig

I can just see the Headline now :
"World Renowned Christian Expert Theologian and Professor of Philosophy, William Lane Craig Enrols at New College"

Not an expert.

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

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

Do you? :pac:

TBH with you, I have no issue with it, but I can see a considerable degree of bias with the selection of people they will have teaching, but any good student will be able to discard the bias from what the lecturer is teaching.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Do you? :pac:

TBH with you, I have no issue with it, but I can see a considerably degree of bias with the selection of people they will have teaching, but any good student will be able to discard the bias from what the lecturer is teaching.

:pac:

pH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In what way is his atheism new?

Well given the following happened in 1696

Aikenhead was accused of having said that theology was "a rhapsody of feigned and ill-invented nonsense" and made up of "poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras". It was reported that he had called the Old Testament "Ezra's Fables" and the New Testament "the History of the impostor Christ who learned magic in Egypt and picked up a few ignorant blockish fisher fellows". The 'friends' told the court that Aikenhead rejected the Trinity as "not worth any man's refutation", scoffed at the incarnation as contradictory, professed pantheism, and denied creation. They further reported that he had declared that he preferred Mohammed to Jesus and hoped to see Christianity soon extirpated. Finally, he was accused of having wished, when cold, to warm in Hell.

... what appears to be "new" is that his books aren't burnt, nor have Christians manage to hang him.
http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/thomasaikenhead.html