Atheist Elite College.

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

robindch

philologos wrote: »

any good student will be able to discard the bias from what the lecturer is teaching.

There ain't no facepalm big enough for a comment like that :rolleyes:

Turtwig

philologos

For goodness sakes Malty T was that really necessary? :pac:

robindch

philologos wrote: »

For goodness sakes Malty T was that really necessary? :pac:

In the context of an apparent claim that it's impossible to mislead children, I'm inclined to think that Malty's substantially understated the case.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

In the context of an apparent claim that it's impossible to mislead children, I'm inclined to think that Malty's substantially understated the case.

I can go bigger, it's just that one was borderline exceeding my monitors native resolution. :pac:
Only someone with a big enough monitor resolution can truly appreciate the beauty of that facepalm.
[If you change the zoom in your browser you should see it ;-)]

philologos

robindch wrote: »

In the context of an apparent claim that it's impossible to mislead children, I'm inclined to think that Malty's substantially understated the case.

We're talking about a university aren't we? I also used the term lecturer rather than teacher.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

We're talking about a university aren't we? I also used the term lecturer rather than teacher.

Fair enough, should have used "students" instead of "children".

However, the point stands. There are a lot of students out there who are sufficiently naive to trust their lecturers pretty much unconditionally. Heavens, just look at the number of clowns in the US "teaching" creationism to the general admiration of their students. And it's not hard to figure out that somebody doing that is being less than fully honest with the facts.

philologos

I said any good student. Most students at university are able to determine where bias seeps in. As a first year politics student (before I gave that a hike in second year) I noticed that many of the lecturers had quite far left leanings placing particular emphasis on things anarcho-socialism. I was able to take the stuff that was pretty useful and discard the bias. For example what I learned about electoral systems and checks and balances in political institutions was pretty useful in general.

Being able to separate opinion from fact is a very useful skill.

I had another lecturer in philosophy class in first year who was very conservative about most things and used a lecture on free will / determinism to discuss his dislike of Islam. Again, while entertaining at times the discerning student will know what to do with that class.

In computer science there was far less need to do this because 99% of what we learn is factual. There are opinions as to what best practice is and what the implications of it are.

That's pretty straight forward methinks.

pH

philologos wrote: »

In computer science there was far less need to do this because 99% of what we learn is factual. There are opinions as to what best practice is and what the implications of it are.

That's pretty straight forward methinks.

I'm not so sure, someone could have tried to teach you pascal.

raah!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And yet not in any way you can explain?

In a straightforward logical way. If you had done me the courtesy of reading my posts, you would see in exactly which logical way. I pointed it out to liamw.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In what way is his atheism new?

This is off topic. I've addressed it a million times before. I can provide you links of where it has been previously discussed. Malty has answered that too. Needless to say, pointing out that there were angry atheists 1000s of years ago suggests a misunderstanding of what is meant by the term. It's the name for members of the modern cultural/social movement.

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

Well if his policy was nothing other htan critical thinking and logic nobody would have a problem. As I said, I would worry about his intentions, based on what he has said in the past.

robindch

raah! wrote: »

It's the name for members of the modern cultural/social movement.

...in the sense that it's a name which can be applied to the group, from outside, all the better to dismiss their collective opinion.

The Mad Hatter

philologos wrote: »

I said any good student. Most students at university are able to determine where bias seeps in.

Generally this is only true of even the most astute people when they disagree with the biases in question.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Being able to separate opinion from fact is a very useful skill.

I don't wish to sound rude, but I can't find any way of asking this politely -- is that a skill that you feel you've used wisely during (what I assume must have been) your many lectures on religion?

philologos

I acknowledge that my beliefs are beliefs, and my opinions are opinions. There is another question that everyone should explore, and that is how well grounded are those beliefs and opinions. That's as applicable to atheism as it is to Christianity.

I could ask you the same question.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

how well grounded are those beliefs and opinions.

Well, you could do worse than to ask yourself all those questions that I've asked you, but you've not answered Starting off with the most basic:

Why do you believe we live in a teleological universe? Far as I can make out, that's an opinion that you've turned into a fact.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Well, you could do worse than to ask yourself all those questions that I've asked you, but you've not answered Starting off with the most basic:

Why do you believe we live in a teleological universe? Far as I can make out, that's an opinion that you've turned into a fact.

Not really. I explain why I think my positions are reasonable. Others are free to agree or disagree.

Claiming that I've not answered that question is a coddery. I've given plenty of reasons as to why I believe that the universe is the Creation of God. I'm happy to re-open that discussion again when I have more time to do so, but to claim that I haven't answered this question (whether or not you agree is up to you) is clearly not true.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I think my positions are reasonable. Others are free to agree or disagree.

An eminently non-committal position which is quite reasonable right up until you realize that at least one of us must be utterly and completely wrong.

philologos wrote: »

I've given plenty of reasons as to why I believe that the universe is the Creation of God.

You've explained many times why, given your pre-existing belief that the universe has a purpose, that the purpose must be your understanding of the deity figure described in the holybook which you chose.

You haven't, unless I've missed it, explained why you believe there happens to be a "purpose" in the first place.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I acknowledge that my beliefs are beliefs, and my opinions are opinions. There is another question that everyone should explore, and that is how well grounded are those beliefs and opinions. That's as applicable to atheism as it is to Christianity.

I could ask you the same question.

Ask yourself do what predictive powers you're beliefs have? The ones that don't discard them, if they don't pay rent kick 'em out keep the ones that do.

raah!

robindch wrote: »

...in the sense that it's a name which can be applied to the group, from outside, all the better to dismiss their collective opinion.

And unless you are completely deluded it's a name which you can apply from within the group to those other members who obviously share a lot more in common than just atheism. We could even say that what they share in common is the erroneous belief that things like an appreciation for Richard Dawkins follow logically from not believing in God.

Would you rather I use the term brights? It wouldn't make a difference what I used. You'll notice I often say things like "people who post here think xyz". More often than not these are accurate predictions. The fact that I can make predictions of what someone who posts here thinks means that there must be some underlying category of which the posters here are all a part that contains these shared beliefs.

I can use which ever term you feel more comfortable with. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that this is a forum full of people with nothing other than atheism in common.

Morbert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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?

Scientists don't have to take a stance on naturalism beyond a methodological adherence to it. I.e. They only investigate natural explanations. Strict naturalism, the claim that only natural things exist, doesn't need to be adopted.

Philosophical issues can be raised regarding the consistency of methodological naturalism, but neither naturalism nor materialism are scientifically verified, or even scientifically investigated.

MrPudding

Malty_T wrote: »

I can go bigger, it's just that one was borderline exceeding my monitors native resolution. :pac:
Only someone with a big enough monitor resolution can truly appreciate the beauty of that facepalm.
[If you change the zoom in your browser you should see it ;-)]

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

In a straightforward logical way. If you had done me the courtesy of reading my posts, you would see in exactly which logical way. I pointed it out to liamw.

This post? If we can account for every single thing we encounter with physical measurements, and no other kind of measurements can offer reliable, repeatable results, then the materialist/naturalist presumption is being tested.

raah! wrote: »

This is off topic. I've addressed it a million times before. I can provide you links of where it has been previously discussed. Malty has answered that too. Needless to say, pointing out that there were angry atheists 1000s of years ago suggests a misunderstanding of what is meant by the term. It's the name for members of the modern cultural/social movement.

I've explained here what the term actually means and why it used. I've yet to see anything that contradicts it. Like I said, might as well call christians "new christians" every time they get a new pope for what it actually means.

raah! wrote: »

Well if his policy was nothing other htan critical thinking and logic nobody would have a problem. As I said, I would worry about his intentions, based on what he has said in the past.

It could be the case that he believes he will achieve his intentions by keeping to that policy.

sensibleken

"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.

couldnt agree more. this sort of educational system which weighs better education for those who can better afford it is really repulsive to me.

the british education system is being stripped of any form of fairness at the moment by public school boys. and setting up private universities like this is adding to the problem

I never paid much attention to dawkins myself but now i can say i have an actual opinion on the man and its less than favourable

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

And unless you are completely deluded it's a name which you can apply from within the group to those other members who obviously share a lot more in common than just atheism. We could even say that what they share in common is the erroneous belief that things like an appreciation for Richard Dawkins follow logically from not believing in God.

From This post:
"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."
I think I've covered this notion before. Before Dawkins there was Bertrand Russell, before Russell was Nietzsche, and so on back to Epicurus or even Socrates. There will always be popular thinkers on every subject and always people who follow them (and always a few who attribute the worth of the ideas to the personality presenting them). There is nothing remotely new in this.

raah! wrote: »

Would you rather I use the term brights? It wouldn't make a difference what I used. You'll notice I often say things like "people who post here think xyz". More often than not these are accurate predictions. The fact that I can make predictions of what someone who posts here thinks means that there must be some underlying category of which the posters here are all a part that contains these shared beliefs.

Simple confirmational bias. The type of atheist who bothers to post on an atheist/agnostic forum is more likely to be assertive in his/her lack of belief and more likely to have read atheistic materials. It would be a fallacy, though, to assume that every atheist here, or any atheists that doesnt have an inclination to discuss their atheism here, thinks the same of all atheistic writings and writers (some of us have never read Dawkins or Dennett or the rest).

raah! wrote: »

I can use which ever term you feel more comfortable with. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that this is a forum full of people with nothing other than atheism in common.

Its disingenuous to assume that we wouldn't have much in common with vocal atheists over the past 2000 years either. Yes vocal atheists general have overlapping opinions in terms of critical thinking, science and rational thinking, but this is not in the least bit new.

MrPudding

sensibleken wrote: »

couldnt agree more. this sort of educational system which weighs better education for those who can better afford it is really repulsive to me.

the british education system is being stripped of any form of fairness at the moment by public school boys. and setting up private universities like this is adding to the problem

I never paid much attention to dawkins myself but now i can say i have an actual opinion on the man and its less than favourable

This is not the first private university in the UK. I go (part time) to one that has been around for years, The University of Buckingham.

It is unfortunate but I think the writing is on the wall for universities in the UK. They are going to be much more expensive places to attend. With the new tuition fee schemes you now have mediocre or even poor universities looking to charge 9k per year because they think to not to do so will devalue them.

In general, I think this place is a good idea. I hope the admission standards remain high and that they secure funding for a substantial scholarship fund.

If anyone is to blame here it is the successive governments that have destroyed third level education. I find it hard to blame people for seeing a gap in the market, due to the action of others, and taking advantage of that gap.

MrP

Mark Hamill

Morbert wrote: »

Scientists don't have to take a stance on naturalism beyond a methodological adherence to it. I.e. They only investigate natural explanations. Strict naturalism, the claim that only natural things exist, doesn't need to be adopted.

Philosophical issues can be raised regarding the consistency of methodological naturalism, but neither naturalism nor materialism are scientifically verified, or even scientifically investigated.

But scientific methodologies only work if they are testing something assumed to be naturally consistent, if you allow for the possibility that there is an inconsistent unnatural/supernatural element, then no result can be taken as indicative of a meaningful result. Scientific results would be useless if you had to assume that a non-natural, non measurable source was or could be interfering, as any and all seemingly consistent results could possibly be coincidence, with no way of measuring how likely the coincidence is.

magicbastarder

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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

quote of the day.

sensibleken

MrPudding wrote: »

This is not the first private university in the UK. I go (part time) to one that has been around for years, The University of Buckingham.

It is unfortunate but I think the writing is on the wall for universities in the UK. They are going to be much more expensive places to attend. With the new tuition fee schemes you now have mediocre or even poor universities looking to charge 9k per year because they think to not to do so will devalue them.

In general, I think this place is a good idea. I hope the admission standards remain high and that they secure funding for a substantial scholarship fund.

If anyone is to blame here it is the successive governments that have destroyed third level education. I find it hard to blame people for seeing a gap in the market, due to the action of others, and taking advantage of that gap.

MrP

of course the succesive governments are to blame. and of course they have been around for a long time, it doesnt make it a good thing and certainly increasing the amount of them is not a good thing

but you mentioned it rightly 'a gap in the market'. education as a market comodity. nice work professor.

MrPudding

sensibleken wrote: »

of course the succesive governments are to blame. and of course they have been around for a long time, it doesnt make it a good thing and certainly increasing the amount of them is not a good thing

but you mentioned it rightly 'a gap in the market'. education as a market comodity. nice work professor.

Our world is, unfortunately, divided into those that can take advantage of something like this and those that can't. I don't like that, but I can't see it changing any time soon. The world is full of things like this.

Do you think Oxford and Cambridge should be done away with as well?

MrP

sensibleken

MrPudding wrote: »

Our world is, unfortunately, divided into those that can take advantage of something like this and those that can't. I don't like that, but I can't see it changing any time soon. The world is full of things like this.

Do you think Oxford and Cambridge should be done away with as well?

MrP

not done away with, changed so that anyone can get in based on merit and completely regardless of whats in their pocket.

for the record i dont know much of their admissions policy save what my OH went through to get into oxford. she passed the interviews but couldnt afford it in the end.

I dont accept your first arguement. The education system in england was far more equitable a few years ago, as it was here. making it worse is not inevitable but is instead because of the whims of politicians

pH

sensibleken wrote: »

couldnt agree more. this sort of educational system which weighs better education for those who can better afford it is really repulsive to me

And maybe a system where only the best drivers get Ferraris based on how well they drive not on how rich they are would be nice too!

This is not state education (which I agree should be based on merit), this is a private college offering those with money something that those without money cannot have - same as Yachts, sports cars, Island holidays, cosmetic surgery etc.

You can complain all you like, the fact is those with money can afford things those without money cannot. Are you really suggesting that rich people can buy Rolex watches, mansions and Bentleys, but somehow should be prohibited from spending their own money on their own (or their children's) education?

sensibleken

pH wrote: »

And maybe a system where only the best drivers get Ferraris based on how well they drive not on how rich they are would be nice too!

This is not state education (which I agree should be based on merit), this is a private college offering those with money something that those without money cannot have - same as Yachts, sports cars, Island holidays, cosmetic surgery etc.

You can complain all you like, the fact is those with money can afford things those without money cannot. Are you really suggesting that rich people can buy Rolex watches, mansions and Bentleys, but somehow should be prohibited from spending their own money on their own (or their children's) education?

are you really suggesting that education is the same as ferraris, rolexs and other pointless crap?

Rev Hellfire

sensibleken wrote: »

are you really suggesting that education is the same as ferraris, rolexs and other pointless crap?

Since its a resource which can be bought and paid for yes.

sensibleken

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Since its a resource which can be bought and paid for yes.

wow. I really have nothing to say to that other than 'can' is not the same as 'should'

pH

sensibleken wrote: »

are you really suggesting that education is the same as ferraris, rolexs and other pointless crap?'

I deliberately chose frivolous items, to highlight how silly it is to disapprove of someone spending money on education, while being entirely happy with the same person frittering away money on shiny bling.

So in your wonderful egalitarian world, what should the punishment be for someone who's misguided enough to spend 18,000 on a years education rather than a platinum watch from a trendy jeweller?

Are you seriously saying that people shouldn't be allowed pay for education? What about training? should companies not be able to send employees on courses either or have you managed this form of paid education is different?

sensibleken

pH wrote: »

I deliberately chose frivolous items, to highlight how silly it is to disapprove of someone spending money on education, while being entirely happy with the same person frittering away money on shiny bling.

So in your wonderful egalitarian world, what should the punishment be for someone who's misguided enough to spend 18,000 on a years education rather than a platinum watch from a trendy jeweller?

Are you seriously saying that people shouldn't be allowed pay for education? What about training? should companies not be able to send employees on courses either or have you managed this form of paid education is different?

look. if you want to debate with me keep it polite ok? if you can first agree to keep it civil and not construct strawmen arguements then i might consider answering some of your questions.

pH

sensibleken wrote: »

look. if you want to debate with me keep it polite ok? if you can first agree to keep it civil and not construct strawmen arguements then i might consider answering some of your questions.

diddums.

MrPudding

sensibleken wrote: »

not done away with, changed so that anyone can get in based on merit and completely regardless of whats in their pocket.

for the record i dont know much of their admissions policy save what my OH went through to get into oxford. she passed the interviews but couldnt afford it in the end.

I dont accept your first arguement. The education system in england was far more equitable a few years ago, as it was here. making it worse is not inevitable but is instead because of the whims of politicians

I don't know much about the admission policies, to be honest, but what I do know is that people who have had 10's of thousands of pounds spend on their private education are considerably more likely to get in, a bit like this new college, just not spent directly. Same idea.

So we have a new college where it costs a lot of money to get in and we have two old colleges where it costs a lot of money to get in. I fail to see the difference.

MrP

sensibleken

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't know much about the admission policies, to be honest, but what I do know is that people who have had 10's of thousands of pounds spend on their private education are considerably more likely to get in, a bit like this new college, just not spent directly. Same idea.

So we have a new college where it costs a lot of money to get in and we have two old colleges where it costs a lot of money to get in. I fail to see the difference.

MrP

Im not saying there is a difference at all. Im saying theyre the same and that i disaprove of money taking over from merit in terms of education

CerebralCortex

sensibleken wrote: »

look. if you want to debate with me keep it polite ok? if you can first agree to keep it civil and not construct strawmen arguements then i might consider answering some of your questions.

Strawmen?