Liberal Student Infiltrates Liberty University to Write Exposé and Discovers Intolerance...From the Left

By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
April 22, 2009 - 21:15 ET
  • Bookmark and Share

This is just too funny! A liberal Ivy League student decides to enroll at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Virgina and write a book exposé (The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University) supposedly showing the intolerance that must be there, or so he thought. The liberal student, however, was surprised to find little of the expected intolerance but is now finding plenty of it from the left because his book was not an outright condemnation of Liberty University nor of Jerry Falwell whom he met during his semester there. An AP story by Eric Tucker sets the scene:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Kevin Roose managed to blend in during his single semester at Liberty University, attending lectures on the myth of evolution and the sin of homosexuality, and joining fellow students on a mission trip to evangelize partyers on spring break.

Roose had transferred to the Virginia campus from Brown University in Providence, a famously liberal member of the Ivy League. His Liberty classmates knew about the switch, but he kept something more important hidden: He planned to write a book about his experience at the school founded by fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Roose explains the reason for his infiltration:

"As a responsible American citizen, I couldn't just ignore the fact that there are a lot of Christian college students out there," said Roose, 21, now a Brown senior. "If I wanted my education to be well-rounded, I had to branch out and include these people that I just really had no exposure to."

We have to give Roose credit here. Unlike most liberals, he actually opened himself up to contrary ideas. Something his parents found hard to understand:

Roose's parents, liberal Quakers who once worked for Ralph Nader, were nervous about their son being exposed to Falwell's views. Still, Roose transferred to Liberty for the spring 2007 semester.

He was determined to not mock the school, thinking it would be too easy _ and unfair. He aimed to immerse himself in the culture, examine what conservative Christians believe and see if he could find some common ground. He had less weighty questions too: How did they spend Friday nights? Did they use Facebook? Did they go on dates? Did they watch "Gossip Girl?"

Did they Twitter? Did they use electricity? Did they eat with utensils?

He lined up a publisher _ Grand Central Publishing _ and arrived at the Lynchburg campus prepared for "hostile ideologues who spent all their time plotting abortion clinic protests and sewing Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls."

Instead, he found that "not only are they not that, but they're rigorously normal."

GASP! But how can that be? Haven't all good liberals been taught that Liberty University students are a bunch of ignorant hateful yahoos foaming at the mouth? Kevin Roose appeared to have strayed dangerously from the Party Line.

He met students who use Bible class to score dates, apply to top law schools and fret about their futures, and who enjoy gossip, hip-hop and R-rated movies _ albeit in a locked dorm room.

Stop! You're making the LU students sound too normal! 

A roommate he depicts as aggressively anti-gay _ all names are changed in the book _ is an outcast on the hall, not a role model.

But...but where's all the hate? 

Roose researched the school by joining as many activites as possible. He accompanied classmates on a spring break missionary trip to Daytona Beach. He visited a campus support group for chronic masturbators, where students were taught to curb impure thoughts. And he joined the choir at Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church.

Roose scored an interview with the preacher for the school newspaper, right before Falwell died in May of that year. Roose decided against confronting him over his views on liberals, gays and other hot-button topics, and instead learned about the man himself, discovering among other things that the pastor loved diet peach Snapple and the TV show "24."

You mean Falwell wasn't consumed with hate 24/7 as all good liberals "know" as absolute fact?

And now something that will really disturb the "tolerant" liberals:

Once ambivalent about faith, Roose now prays to God regularly _ for his own well-being and on behalf of others. He said he owns several translations of the Bible and has recently been rereading meditations from the letters of John on using love and compassion to solve cultural conflicts.

He's even considering joining a church.

This latter must be very upsetting to liberals including his own parents. Sonny Boy! Where did we go wrong? To see just how upset the liberals are over this book, just read a few examples of intolerace in the Huffington Post comments section:

Wow, that must be a pretty good brainwashing program they've got there. That or this guy is weak sauce. You wouldn't catch me praying to some magic sky daddy if I spent a THOUSAND years at Liberty "University."

He should have gone to a deprogrammer to complete the experience.

I wish he'd done an MRI before and after. It appears he's been brainwashed. Long periods of time with cults will do that.

I'm a little worried about Kevin's soul now that he's been programmed. He seems strong and intelligent though, so there's still hope for him. I'll be praying for his salvation from the radical right.

 I hope he's been debriefed and re-socialized into the real world. Never visit the darkside.

So it turns out that Kevin Roose did discover intolerance due to spending a semester at Liberty University and, as we can see from these comments, it is now coming from the left.

Welcome to the Brave New World of ironic reality,  Kevin.

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

In the name of 'Tolerance'...

April 22, 2009 - 21:33 ET by Slyrr

Agnostics, atheists, leftists and liberals are using tactics as old as civilization itself because it comes from the same mastermind who has played this game for thousands of years.

Their current strategy is using the language of 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' to promote intolerance and hatred of the most violent and enraged kind.

Seriously - for all their talk about 'acceptance' and being 'moderates' - try suggesting to THEM that maybe they need to be more accepting of other people's beliefs and more moderate in their behavior.  

And you will see them transform into the atheist's equivilant of the Spanish Inquisition so fast it will blow your mind.  Anger, rage, wailing, gnashing of teeth and stamping of feet - everything you ever read about in the scriptures describing the frustrated state of the wicked and these agents of 'tolerance' will display it full bore.

If the voice of the people comes to choose wickedness, then God won't protect us as he has in the past.  So stand firm people - the first weapon they pull out is mockery, so develop your immunity to it by whatever means you can muster.  The political party of tolerance and love has poisoned fangs and claws.... They present the face of the Bhudda to the world, but they have the heart of a scorpion.

I think your classifications are too broad

April 23, 2009 - 09:11 ET by ahusser

Being polite and not wanting to label your post an example of intolerance. I would like to say that an agnostic can be a conservative, an atheist can be a conservative and any individual of any religous, ethnic or cultural persuasion can be a conservative. But a liberal (socialist, communist, lefty, Democrat whatever you wish to call them) by definition cannot be conservative. In other words we are talking about political ideology. Once again I would like to say that religion should have no place in the poltical arena, and is a matter of private conscience. Having to pass a religous litmus test to be conservative is intolerant, counterprodutive and exclusionary.

The lad did well and showed great creativity and ambition in doing what he did. The fact he kept an open mind and learned some lessons is encouraging and that he can market his experiences is a plus because isn't that the American way.

"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'

Good morning ahusser

April 23, 2009 - 09:38 ET by cocodrie

You point out one of the reasons we conservatives bicker amongst ourselves. We do not separate acceptance from tolerance. We can tolerate objectionable behavior without accepting or approving of it.

I do believe however, that religion does have a place in the political arena sinse it is the basis of a person's decision making.If a person is not religious then that person's decisions will be based on the moral beliefs held by that person. Religion should not be part of government as in a theocracy, but should not be discriminated against.

All true Christians are conservative but you are absolutely correct in that all true conservatives are not Christian.

God loves us all whether we believe in Him or not. He allows us free will even though we abuse it.

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

Judge Not.....

April 23, 2009 - 09:40 ET by Utherpend

I have to agree with ahusser, being an agnostic or an athiest does not mean you are an amoral or left leaning kook.  Nor does it mean you can't be a conservative and a Republican.  I am an athiest and I would be willing to bet I know more about religion and religeous history than most of the bible thumpers I meet every day.  I am also a hard core conservative who is more dedicated than all the Rino's in my circle of friends.   At no time have I ever told another person to not have beliefs regardless of their faith. Some of the best discussions I have had are with my friends on the subject of relgion.

So be careful of using those labels so easily as they may soon be applied to you.

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."

Utherpend

April 23, 2009 - 09:47 ET by QueenMum

I'd like to hear on what philosophy you base your conservatism - especially as it regards America and its Constitution.

Note: I'd prefer that any response from others avoid moving the topic toward a debate about whether or not God exists.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand

A few corrections.

April 23, 2009 - 10:31 ET by Mike Bratton

1) It isn't "judging" to take people at their word. 

2) If you are an atheist, as you say you are, then it follows that you are amoral.  Without an objective, external moral grounding as a frame of reference, your morality is based in your personal opinion. 

3) And your morality, consequently, can be changed by a single swing of a ball-peen hammer.  Or by the psychological impact of a life-changing event.  Or by any of a hundred other influences upon your personal opinion.

4) Knowing "about" something doesn't mean you comprehend it.  If you comprehended the information about Christianity and Christian history you supposedly know, you would be a Christian.

5) Self-aggrandizement is never a good move.

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

Mike Bratton, I won't

April 23, 2009 - 11:45 ET by hydrodynDM

Mike Bratton,

I won't speak for Utherpend but, as an agnostic, I felt compelled to respond.

Your argument that a moral code requires an "objective" frame of reference is based on the assumption that such a basis exists. Guess what? That assumption is based on "your personal opinion". By your argument, then, you are amoral.

And to suggest that people without religious faith can't hold true to an established set of moral codes in the face of hardship is both insulting and arrogant.

I'm curious, what exactly do you get out of holding such condescending views of people who don't share your religious faith?

 

Interesting reply.

April 23, 2009 - 16:20 ET by Mike Bratton

Let's see what you've asserted:

1) No objective morality is possible.

2) No one has ever compromised a personal belief "in the face of hardship." 

3) No one can have confidence in a faith other than atheism.

And the insults, the arrogance, and the condescention are coming from me?  Not exactly...  However, if you'd like to try again, I'm always interested in good conversation.

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

Mike Bratton, The thing

April 23, 2009 - 18:21 ET by hydrodynDM

Mike Bratton,

The thing that's interesting is that I didn't assert or even suggest any of the statements you ascribe to me.

So, in the interest of good conversation, I'll elaborate.

1) I never said no objective morality is possible. What I was pointing out (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that as of now there is no objective proof of the existence of God. Consequently, there is no way to back up the claim that the moral code set down in any religious text is "objective".

If you accept the moral code as expressed in the teachings of some religion, you are doing so as a matter of "person opinion" (to use your terminology) or personal faith (to use my terminology).

Either way, according to your own argument, then, you are just as amoral as I am. (By the way, you might want to look up the meaning of that word).

As an agnostic, I don't deny the possibility of the existence of God. Consequently, I don't deny the possibility of the existence of an objective moral code. What I'm saying is that we are not currently in a position to verify the existence of either one.

2) I have no idea how you got this from what I wrote. Maybe you can point out to me where I said or even suggested that no one has ever compromised their personal beliefs.

You seemed to suggest (and, again, correct me if I'm wrong) that if you don't have a moral code based on religious belief, then you are more inclined than a person of faith to either alter it or abandon it.

If that is in fact what you meant, then I'll repeat what I said before - it's an insulting and arrogant statement.

It would be just as arrogant of me to suggest that people of faith require the ever watchful eye of a judgmental God to keep them in check. The difference is that I would never suggest that.

3) All I can say is - What? The word "atheism" doesn't even appear my post to you, let alone the assertion to ascribe to me.

So, is it your turn to "try again"?

 

I understand that it may be uncomfortable for you...

April 23, 2009 - 23:25 ET by Mike Bratton

...but digging such holes as you're in often is.  And I'm not trying to pound on you, personally, but you are in a bit of a quandry, and very much in need of correction and assistance.

Let's examine just where it is that you are now.

"I never said no objective morality is possible."  Yes, actually, you did.  If what is taken to be objective morality is really the result of an assumption based on personal opinion (as you insisted previously), then free-standing, independent, third-party, externally objective morality is an impossibility.  The acceptance of a moral code does not alter or otherwise modify that code; there is no moral Heisenberg principle in play.

As a side note, suggesting that people look up the meaning of rudimentary words is prima facie evidence of an arrogant, self-aggrandizing attitude.  Unfortunately, it fits in with your similarly grandiose assertion that you "know more about religion and religeous (sic) history than most of the bible (sic) thumpers" you meet every day.  

And as a self-professed agnostic, you do, as a matter of policy, deny the existence of God.  Admitting His existence would require a response, or other action on your part; the supposed distinction between agnostic and atheistic thought is a matter of intensity, not of kind.

With regard to my statement regarding morality, it was straightforward enough, but allow me to explore it in greater detail.  If subjective morality, as you have asserted, is all there is, then there is no such thing as morality whatsoever, because morality is not subject to whim or change.  Objective morality persists despite the failings of those who subscribe to it, while so-called "subjective morality" is malleable to the point of being unrecognizable as morality at all.   The comment was about the nature of morality, not the ability to adhere to a moral system.

The only arrogance, if I may reiterate, lies in insisting that one is an elitist in the study of Christianity while being unable to grasp its simplest concepts.  Of course, it's easier to dismiss us as "Bible thumpers," right?

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

Mike Bratton, You have

April 23, 2009 - 23:48 ET by hydrodynDM

Mike Bratton,

You have mistakenly attribute comments made by Utherpen to me (and for all I know, you were doing this in your previous post as well).

If you wouldn't mind, please correct and repost your comments with that in mind and I'll be more than happy to reply tomorrow sometime.

You felt compelled to respond.

April 24, 2009 - 08:39 ET by Mike Bratton

That implies an advocacy of the points previously advanced.

I'm examining issues, not individuals.  If your stance on the issues differs from King Arthur's dad up there, then by all means articulate the differences. 

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

Mike Bratton, You

April 24, 2009 - 19:03 ET by hydrodynDM

Mike Bratton,

You wrote:

"You felt compelled to respond. That implies an advocacy of the points previously advanced."

Wow. No it doesn't. I felt compelled to respond to what you wrote - not what Utherpen wrote. The fact that your post was a response to his doesn't imply anything about my take on Utherpen's views - and you know it.

You made a mistake and rather than just saying "Woops - sorry about that" you try to make up some rule about online discussions.

OK, let's apply your rule to the following situation:

Person A: I believe in space aliens.

Person B: There are no such thing - and the only reason you think that is because scientist insist there are.

Person C: Well, actually, as a scientist, I can tell you we are currently agnostic on the topic.

By your rule, Person C has to agree with Person A, even though that forces Person C to contradicts himself.

So, how about you just repeat after me ... "Sorry about that, I made a mistake". Mistakes happen. It's no big deal.

But I will try to respond to your previous post - at least the parts that actually seem to deal with things I've posted.

You said:

If what is taken to be objective morality is really the result of an
assumption based on personal opinion (as you insisted previously), then
free-standing, independent, third-party, externally objective morality
is an impossibility.

Let me ask you something. Let's say that I propose the existence of a certain subatomic particle. Let's also say that we don't currently have the ability to detect the particles since current particle accelerators (which are required to see it) aren't powerful enough. If I ask you "Do these particles exist?", what is your response?

I think you would agree that the proper response is "I don't know - maybe they do and maybe they don't, but we aren't currently in a position to say either way." If you choose to believe that they exist, you might be right, but that belief is based on faith or a guess and so is a personal choice (and you may end up being wrong).

If you get that, then you get my view on the existence of objective morality. So no (again) - I don't deny the possible existence of an objective morality.

You said:

And as a self-professed agnostic, you do, as a matter of policy, deny the existence of God. 

I think it's funny that you lecture me about the arrogance of asking someone to look up the meaning of a word, and then you write this  - a statement that in no way reflects the commonly held view of what an "agnostic" is.

I won't ask you to look up the word "agnostic" - I explain it to you.

You know that example I gave just now about the particle. The "proper response" I suggested is the response of someone who is agnostic on the issue of whether that particle exists. Did that response entail or imply that the hypothetical particle doesn't exist? Um, no it didn't.

You next wrote:

Admitting His existence would require a response, or other action on your part

Well, this is strictly a comment on why someone might be an agnostic, not what an agnostic is.

Next we have:

the supposed distinction between agnostic and atheistic thought is a matter of intensity, not of kind.

If you say so. Most other people on the planet with disagree with you, but I'm sure that doesn't mean much to you.

By the way, you can be an epistemological agnostic with regard to the existence of God and still believe in God as a matter of faith. How exactly does that mesh with your interpretation of what an agnostic is?

Then we have:

If subjective morality, as you have asserted, is all there is, then
there is no such thing as morality whatsoever, because morality is not
subject to whim or change.

Again, you've decided on the definition of a word that isn't generally accepted. There are tons of folks who argue that morality, by its nature, is subjective. I understand that you don't accept that, but putting forth your view as if it's the only reasonable one is, well, arrogant.

And to repeat - as an agnostic on this subject, I'm not suggesting that there is no objective morality. What I'm saying is that there is no way for us to verify its existence, if it exists. Consequently, your choice of a particular moral code is a subjective one - although, if you are correct, it would turn out that you were following an objective moral code.

You said:

Objective morality persists despite the failings of those who subscribe to it,

OK - how do you know that there is an objective morality? If you can provide a proof, I will humbly admit that I've been talking out of my butt. But then, if you have proof of the existence of God (which is what you would basically have to come up with), admitting I was wrong to you would seem a pretty small price to pay for the most important proof in the history of the world.

Actually,

April 25, 2009 - 01:43 ET by Kelly72

Actually, volumes have been written on the proof of the existence of God - both on a scientific basis and on a purely philosophical basis.  I'm not expecting you to take my word for it, of course, but rather I'm just letting you know that it exists.  Unless and until one has fully explored this proof of existence in every aspect (not a light research project) with open mind and sincere objective intent... it really is rather disingenuous to state as a matter of fact that there is no way to verify the existence of God - or the existence of objective morality.

Of course, stating "I don't know" is perfectly reasonable - if you don't know.   However, stating "it is not possible to know" is not reasonable.   So it's important to make that distinction.

With due respect, please do not presume to tell anyone else that their moral code is subjective.  You do not know any such thing.  The moral code that I know I am obliged to follow is an objective moral code.  I know this by research of objective reality and use of reason.  "Faith" (in the genuine sense of the word) is not blind.  It is based in facts and reason.  It is the natural end of the study of science, history, philosophy, etc. - all of which I have studied in order to understand objectively the matter of whether God exists, how we can know this to be so, and following that, what, if anything, God has provided to us to guide our lives, and, by what evidence do we know this to be so...  and so on...  That's how it's done.  Indeed, it's all about objective reality.

We all have the ability.   We all have the intellect and the will.   We all have the responsibility. 

It is a topic that is too big for such a format as this, quite obviously.  :)   All the best.

Kelly72, If you could

April 25, 2009 - 14:51 ET by hydrodynDM

Kelly72,

If you could provide links or references to these proofs (particularly the scientific ones) I would really appreciate it.

And to clarify, I don't believe that there is "no way to verify the existence of God". Reading through my post, I realized that I wrote a sentence near the end that seems to imply that - specifically

What I'm saying is that there is no way for us to verify its existence, if it exists. 

What I should have said is that there is "currently" no way for us to verify its existence.

If you look at the entire post, you'll see that my corrected version is consistent with the other things I wrote. Sorry about any possible confusion on that.

I should also point out that I am working from the assumption that there currently is no proof for God. If I'm wrong and you could point me in the direction of these proofs, I would be very interested in seeing them.

You wrote:

With due respect, please do not presume to tell anyone else that their
moral code is subjective.  You do not know any such thing.

Again, working from the assumption that there is no proof of God, it follows that all moral codes are subjective. If I'm wrong about the former, then I'm obviously wrong about the latter.

I understand that trying to get into details about how you know about objective reality would take a lot of time and space and isn't appropriate to this format. That is why I'm asking for links or references to proofs of God.

And on a personal note - as an agnostic, I am open to the idea of accepting the existence of God. If such a proof existed, I'd have to say it would be life altering. Having said that, I have to wonder - if such a proof (or proofs) exists, how is the existence of God still even debated? How did I not hear about these (particularly the scientific ones, since I work in that field)? I understand that some folks would reject these proofs, regardless. But, if a sound and valid proof existed, that would be .... well, huge.

Which is why I'm expecting that any links or references you send about these proofs will most likely not be "proofs" but rather arguments, predicated on assumptions that are either accepted on faith or flawed. I really hope I'm wrong.

As an aside, I do have to say that I find it odd when I hear people say that I need to keep an "open mind" when considering proofs for the existence of God. I say that, because I don't think a mathematician (for example) would feel the need to tell me to keep an "open mind" while going over some math proof. Proofs are correct or incorrect - how open or closed my mind is about it is pretty irrelevant.

To me, at least, it seems the "open mind" comment is really a way of saying that if you don't accept these arguments (not proofs) for the existence of God, then you are being "closed minded" and I find that vaguely insulting.

I'm not saying that you were saying or implying this - it's just something that popped into my head when I read your comment.

Hello again

April 25, 2009 - 16:58 ET by Kelly72

You want a "link" provided to you to show you the proof of the existence of God?   I think that may be indicative of part of the problem.   :)  (Yes, I know you said "or references".  I just thought the idea was kind of funny.  No offense.)  Of course, if you really want to know and understand, leave the computer, spend some significant time in silent comtemplation, and then, with open mind and sincere objective intent, embark upon a journey of significant research and comtemplation.   No one else can do it for you.  But I think you know that.  I am not here to convince you.  It is not possible in a format such as this.  I made that clear.   I am simply here to encourage you to do the work... and refrain from judging the objectivity of anyone else's moral code until you do...

Many people start with the Summa Theologica by Aquinas.  You might choose that.  You might also wish to start with On Anything and On Everything by Hil Belloc.  Or start elsewhere - it's really up to you.   There is time and effort involved, but it's well worth it.

Yes, I emphasize having an open mind and sincere objective intent, because it is necessary.  It may not be necessary for you, but since I do not know you, I have to emphasize it just in case.  The will to believe, or not believe, something can overcome even the strongest evidence.  It's extremely powerful.  So the will must be open and sincere and objective, or nothing else matters.   That, of course, applies to everything.  Why is the existence of God still debated, even though the human mind is capable of discovering the reality through facts and reason?   That's why.   

I'm glad that you are open to the idea of accepting the existence of God.  There are different kinds of agnostics, and some agnostics claim that it is absolutely not possible to know anything about the existence of God.  Period.   Looking at your previous comments, it really seemed to me that that was your position, and I wanted to address that.  However, you have clarified what you meant, so that takes care of that.  :)

Good luck to you.

Kelly72, Thank you for

April 25, 2009 - 17:46 ET by hydrodynDM

Kelly72,

Thank you for your response.

Yea, looking at it now, asking for a link for the existence of God does come across as silly sounding - but you got what I meant.

Alas, your suggestions aren't what I'm really looking for. Your post seems to basically say what I already knew - that belief in God is ultimately a matter of faith and a willingness to believe - it isn't a matter of putting together a proof. And that's cool. For whatever reason, I don't have that faith - at least, I don't right now. For all I know, that might change in the future.

I'm familiar with Aquinas' proofs. Unfortunately, all of them have weaknesses. For example, his first cause argument assumes the universality of "cause and effect". But we know that some systems don't seem to follow this law, so that argument is flawed.

Belloc's work is actually available online so I might read through it.

Thanks again for the reply.

yes hydro

April 25, 2009 - 17:52 ET by botg

just as faith in the scientific method is faith

reasonable faith in both cases, imo

"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read"   ---Groucho

Hello botg, Despite my

April 26, 2009 - 11:49 ET by hydrodynDM

Hello botg,

Despite my best efforts to hide, I knew you would track me here to keep me in check  ;)

hydro

April 26, 2009 - 12:10 ET by botg

we have ways

;^ )

"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read"   ---Groucho

You're welcome

April 25, 2009 - 18:38 ET by Kelly72

Actually, my post says exactly the opposite of what you claim.  I'm sorry that you misunderstood.   Among other things, I quite clearly stated that the human mind is capable of discovering the reality through facts and reason.  But to discover anything through facts and reason, one must have an open and sincere and objective will that is not biased in any direction.   That is my point about will, and I apologize if I did not make it clear enough in my original comments.  I made no claim that "belief in God is ultimately a matter of faith and a willingness to believe" as you phrase it.  Quite the contrary.  (Also please see my previous comments on genuine "faith".)  I hope that clarifies. 

As I have previously explained, I studied the question of the existence of God in a purely objective manner, and I came to understand the reality of the existence of God, and all related to that, in that manner.   What I propose to you is that you do the same, in a purely objective manner.

In addition, wherever you decide to begin your study, whether in science or history or philosophy or elsewhere, there is an abundance of material available.   Take the time.  Make the effort.

Actually, there is no "system" that does not follow cause and effect.  None.  :)   If you genuinely want to research that concept - or anything else - please read and examine thoroughly and comtemplate thoroughly.   The internet is not your friend.  :)  Not in this case.   It's an easy way to get bad information, and this is too important.  If you are serious, leave the computer.   (Just for this purpose, not altogether!) 

Anyway, I hope that helps a bit.  I really hope you put in the time and effort.  I appreciate your response and your willingness to "talk" about it with me.  Take care.   

Kelly72, Sorry about

April 26, 2009 - 11:46 ET by hydrodynDM

Kelly72,

Sorry about misrepresenting your view.

Let me try again.

Among other things, I quite clearly stated that the human mind is
capable of discovering the reality through facts and reason.  But to
discover anything through facts and reason, one must have an open and sincere and objective will that is not biased in any direction.

I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that given the proper facts and reason, the truth of some matter should become clear to someone willing to put the effort into understanding those facts.

As I have previously explained, I studied the question of the existence
of God in a purely objective manner, and I came to understand the
reality of the existence of God, and all related to that, in that
manner. 

Well, I've also studied the question of the existence of God. My conclusion has been that I haven't seen enough facts or seen solid arguments that would lead me to believe that God exists. However, my study of epistemology has taught me not to conclude, from that, that God doesn't exist. Just that I can't say either way - that's why I'm an agnostic on the topic.

Now, it is possible that I haven't done enough study or haven't studied the right material. That's why I asked you for some help in pointing me in the right direction.

In addition to that, you seem to suggest that maybe I'm not approaching the topic with the right mindset - that maybe I'm being bias in my view of this topic and that's affecting how I draw my conclusions.

But here's the thing. If there is or are valid and sound arguments for the existence of God, my mindset would be irrelevant. If you present me with a mathematical proof of some theorem and that proof is valid, then the conclusion is something I have to accept, regardless of my attitude towards it.

You mention an "abundance of material". OK. I just haven't seen it. That's why I asked for references. And given that the first one - Aquinas - is one I'm already familiar with and one that I already know has its flaws, I don't really have much hope in any other references you might give me. Yes, that's me being cynical. But the fact is, I would love to be surprised. I like to think that as an agnostic, I am approaching this topic with an open mind since I don't have a predisposition either way about the existence of God. But maybe not - people are pretty good at fooling themselves about things and I'm no exception.

Actually, there is no "system" that does not follow cause and
effect.  None.  :)   If you genuinely want to research that concept -
or anything else - please read and examine thoroughly and comtemplate
thoroughly.   The internet is not your friend.  :)  Not in this case.  
It's an easy way to get bad information, and this is too important.  If
you are serious, leave the computer.

OK, I'm going to have to pull rank on this one. I teach physics at the college level. I graduated from an Ivy League school with a major in physics and a minor in philosophy. When it comes to the topic of causality and how it relates to physical systems, I think I'm pretty well read on this topic (as in actual books and journals - not internet articles). I know that sounded arrogant - and it was - and I know you are trying to help me, but in this case, I don't think you can lecture me about reading up on this topic. I have. A lot.

The fact is that there are systems that exhibit non-causal behavior. It's been understood - for decades - that the theory that describes these systems - Quantum Mechanics - has a non-causal element to it. If you are interested, look into the following topics: EPR, Bell's Inequality and Aspect experiment of 1981. I could even suggest some books, if you'd like.

Anyway, thanks again for the response. It's nice to be able to have a polite discussion on a topic like this (unlike the other one I'm having here :) )

Howdy

April 26, 2009 - 17:27 ET by Kelly72

"Now, it is possible that I haven't done enough study or haven't studied the right material."

~  Well, I guess that was what I was attempting to put across.  I don't think you're done yet.  :)

"If there is or are valid and sound arguments for the existence of God, my mindset would be irrelevant."

~  No, really, that is not correct.  I am fairly confident in saying that you are not superior to every other human being in that regard - ie. that your mindset cannot and will not prevent you from seeing facts clearly.  :)  Of course, you yourself quite sincerely pointed out (after this statement) that people are good at fooling themselves and you are no exception.  So I guess we don't have to argue about it.  Anyway, it's certainly obvious that history is replete with examples.  Not to mention our own experience in our own lifetimes.  I certainly don't put myself above it nor do I put anyone else above it.  Mindset is extremely important.

"I'm going to have to pull rank on this one."

~ Heh.  You can try.  :)  But, I don't think you understand "cause and effect" in its genuine philosophical sense if you claim that any such systems do not operate by "cause and effect".  I did not merely "minor" in philosophy.  Should I pull rank on you with this one?  :)  No, I will just strongly suggest that a sound philosophical education would benefit you immensely.  Perhaps that sounds arrogant, too, but I don't mean it that way.  I genuinely wish that for you.  Actually, I wish it for everyone, but particularly for someone like you, who seems like a person who would really be able to get into it deeply and gain a lot from it.

In the meantime, I think I would suggest moving on from "cause and effect" and not getting stuck on that point.  It's just one facet of the jewel.  (Yes, I have more metaphors to mix in, but I will spare you.  You're welcome.)

It is, of course, a fascinating topic that you bring up, and if there happens to be a particularly good book on it that you would like to recommend, I think I would like to check it out anyway just for interest.  It's certainly an amazing universe, isn't it?

Perhaps we'll have to disagree for the time being.  I respect your honesty about being agnostic, but it is my hope that you keep up the search for answers. 

Kelly72, From your last

April 27, 2009 - 19:08 ET by hydrodynDM

Kelly72,

From your last post

~ Heh.  You can try.  :)  But, I don't think you understand "cause and
effect" in its genuine philosophical sense if you claim that any such
systems do not operate by "cause and effect".  I did not merely "minor"
in philosophy.  Should I pull rank on you with this one?  :)

Yoinks - I've been called out :) Well, I appreciate your suggestion that I read up on more philosophy but to be fair, I did specifically say "causality and how it relates to physical systems". I'm not sure what you mean by "genuine philosophical sense". I do know that causality is treated in different ways in different contexts. And I do know that within the context of scientific theories, the meaning of causality underwent fundamental changes with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And it was in that context that I was speaking.

Just as a simple example of what I'm getting at (and I know I'm getting way off topic here) - if you have a collection of radioactive atoms, QM has no way of predicting which particular atom will decay or when - it can only give probabilistic predictions of things like the half-life of the entire system. This might lead some folks to conclude (as Einstein did) that QM is incomplete since it can't provide this information.

However the theoretical work of John Bell and the subsequent experimental work (particularly by Alain Aspect) showed that any theory that might improve on QM or replace it completely will still be unable to make these predictions. In a sense, there is no "fact of the matter" about which atom will decay when. Many see this as an example of a non-causal element to reality.

But let's go beyond that. The notion of "cause and effect" seems to me intimately tied to the idea of time. If, however, time had a beginning with the Big Bang, then the idea of causality seems to have no meaning at that instance.

And beyond that... it needs to be recognized that "cause and effect" is a man made theory about nature. Most (sufficiently complicated) theories in science have a range of applicability. In other words, there are situations where the theory can't really be applied. I don't think it's too much of a leap to suggest that under the extreme conditions of, say, the Big Bang, that this theory (like most others in physics) break down and no longer apply.

That said, you tell me not to get hung up on this. OK. But the point is, that every arguments (not just this one) for the existence of God that I've seen has something wrong with it - usually an assumption that is taken to be absolutely true (like "cause and effect") which need not be absolutely true.

A thousand flawed arguments taken together don't make a valid one.

Now that I've shown how stubborn I am - you asked for a reference about the stuff I was just talking about so here it is:

"Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections of Bell's Theorem", Cushing and McMullin (Editors)

It's actually a collection of essays on the topic of Bell's Inequality and other stuff. I sometimes see it in Barnes and Noble or Borders in either the science or philosophy sections (I can't remember which).

Thanks again for you polite response.

Hello

April 27, 2009 - 20:15 ET by Kelly72

Thank you for the reference.   I appreciate it.

Yes, I understood the general idea of what you were getting at in your previous comments, and indeed your clarification would seem to confirm it.  Again, lack of predictability is certainly not indicative of a system that does not observe that basic philosophical concept of "cause and effect".

"The notion of "cause and effect" seems to me intimately tied to the idea of time."

Actually, it is not "intimately" tied to the idea of time.  The concept of "eternally proceeding" has been known to philosophers for millenia.  I think a Christian theologian would tell you that it is best exemplified in the theology of the Trinity.

"And beyond that... it needs to be recognized that 'cause and effect' is a man made theory about nature."

No, it is not merely a man-made theory.  That is the whole point.  It is philosophical exposition of the reality of existence.  There is a difference.  Again, I'm not suggesting that you should take my word for it, if you do not understand.  Rather, I am suggesting that a sound philosphical education is the necessary place for you to begin.  I say "begin" because it needs to be looked at as a beginning.  No encumbrances.  :)

I would suggest that, rather than "every argument" for the existence of God having something wrong with it, it is, rather, your assumptions about those arguments that have something wrong with them.  (Not that you've seen "every argument".  Nor did you claim that of course.  I understand that.)  Your assumptions about "cause and effect" have been sincere but quite wrong.   You really need to start at the beginning.  I want to get that across, because I can see great potential here, and I'd hate to see such potential lost merely because I was inadequate with my expostulation.  [Also, I hate being inadequate.  Good thing it doesn't happen often.  :) :) :) ]

Again, thank you for the reference.   Take care.

Kelly72, You

April 27, 2009 - 21:12 ET by hydrodynDM

Kelly72,

You said:

Again, lack of predictability is certainly not indicative of a system that does not observe that basic philosophical concept of "cause and effect". 

Well, it isn't just lack of predictability. I know my explanation wasn't as detailed as it should be and the fact is, you really do have to do a bit of reading to get into this stuff, but the point is that experimental data suggests that empirical reality has an inherently probabilistic aspect to it that has nothing to do with a theory's ability to predict things. In other words, "lack of predictability" implies an inability of a given theory to give information that really is there. The results of Bell's work and the later experiments strongly suggest that isn't the case. That the fact that QM can't predict this stuff isn't the result of QM being incomplete - it's a reflection of empirical reality.

That aside, your last post actually clarified things for me. I had mentioned that I thought you were pretty much telling me that I need to read more and read the right kinds of material. And from your counter points, it is obviously true that I haven't read about the topics that you have.

You seem to be basing a lot of you ideas on theological philosophy. However, since that type of philosophy is predicated on an idea which I don't accept (the existence of God), then those arguments carry little weight with me. Consequently, I'll never be motivated to gain the kind of "sound philosophical education" you are suggesting.

For example, your rejections of my characterization of "cause and effect" are predicated on this assumption and so don't carry much weight for me since I'm taking a purely naturalistic view of this topic.

Same goes with arguments for the existence for God. Of course, I haven't seen all of them, but the ones I have are, as I said, either based on an assumption that might reasonably be rejected or are basically circular since they already assume the existence of God.

Specifically, your counter to one of my arguments about "cause and effect" was to invoke "eternally proceeding". But this idea assumes the existence of God. Consequently, you are using the idea of God in an argument that is meant to assess the validity of an argument for the existence of God. Maybe I'm wrong (and it is late so maybe I'm just being tired) but that sounds like a circular argument to me.

I guess what I'm saying is that we won't see eye on this stuff since most of your arguments are based on the very idea that I'm trying to find proof for - that God exists.

Well, enough of that. I'm sure at this point you're thinking I'm hopeless so I'm off get some sleep.

Take care.

Peace :)

April 27, 2009 - 22:14 ET by Kelly72

I realized that I was simplifying by using the phrase "lack of predictability" but I didn't want to be tedious.  The point remains the same.  There is nothing in any of this material that operates without the basic philosophical premise of "cause and effect".   So one needs to understand "cause and effect" in order to understand that.  That is the beginning point.

You have not been paying attention if you think that I have been "basing a lot of ideas on theological philosophy".   I gave one example of theological philosophy, just as an extra item for interest sake, but that was all. 

"Consequently, I'll never be motivated to gain the kind of 'sound philosophical education' you are suggesting."

Please don't be quite so eager to look for a way out.  :)  As I explained, your premise is not valid. 

As always, it is my intent to make known to you that objective study can lead to knowledge of the necessity and reality of God.  That's all.  (There are, of course, those who believe in God without purely objective study, but that is beside the point for this discussion.)

My objection to your characterization of "cause and effect" was due to your incorrect assertion that "cause and effect" was "intimately" tied to the idea of time.  This is a false assumption.  The concept of "eternally proceeding" has been known to philosophers for millenia, separate from any religious belief.  So, my objection was just an attempt to point out a false assumption. 

"I guess what I'm saying is that we won't see eye on this stuff since most of your arguments are based on the very idea that I'm trying to find proof for - that God exists."

That's simply not correct.  I made one and only one reference to theological philosophy, because it provided what I thought was an interesting side note to the discussion.  I thought you would take it as that.

Please don't look for a way out.  I don't mean a way out of having a discussion with me, since obviously we have gotten to a point where further discussion between us at this time would not be beneficial, but a way out of putting in the time and effort to look for answers in an objective manner using facts and reason.

It does begin with a sound philosophical education.  But even before that, before anything, I think it begins with quiet contemplation.  Find a place that is comfortable for you, and spend some significant time in quiet contemplation.  Let your mind go as far as it will go.  Then try to make it go a bit farther.  A bit farther.  Be determined within yourself that you want to know reality.  Objective reality.  Focus on that.  Take the time.  Make the effort.  Then, your journey begins.  

Hey, we're all in this together.  Good luck.

 

Kelly72, Well, you can

April 28, 2009 - 19:44 ET by hydrodynDM

Kelly72,

Well, you can insist that "cause and effect" is a necessary part of all physical processes all you want, but until you explain to me in detail how that jives with the things I've brought up (QM, Bell's Inequality, etc...), all you are doing is stating your opinion - not explaining it.

You seem to suggest that I don't understand causality. OK, maybe. But my understanding is based on how philosophers of science have formulated it and that is the context that I'm working from. Unless you want to tell me that you have a background in the philosophy of science (something that I do have), I don't see how you can just tell me I'm wrong on this without explaining how.

You said

As I explained, your premise is not valid.

I'm not sure which premise you meant - the thing about causality or about not accepting (or denying) the existence of God. If it's the former, I address that already. If it's the latter, then you simply saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so.

You said

The concept of "eternally proceeding" has been known to philosophers for millenia...

OK, could you explain this concept to me or point me to a reference that talks about it, because if it isn't predicated on the assumption that God exists, then I don't get it.

However, if you are as familiar with philosophy as you suggest, then you know as well as I that one argument in philosophy doesn't generally resolve the issue.

For example, you express a belief in "objective reality" but you have to know that many philosophers over the years have rejected this notion in favor of things like idealism or anti-realist philosophies. And as far as I know, that issue hasn't been resolved to everyone's satisfaction (unless I missed a meeting).

You keep suggesting I need a "sound philosophical education" but I don't really think you mean that. I think you mean that I need a theological philosophical education which will lead me to accepting the existence of God.

I'm sorry if I'm a bit abrasive in this post. It's finals week and I'm swamped with grading and preparing exams and I'm probably a little over-worked.

I do appreciate your responses to my posts.

excellent hydro

April 28, 2009 - 20:01 ET by botg

with a background in philosophy of science you can explain the difference between a presumption of materialism only and the scientific method.  (as you know these loose 'definitions' of science are switched around in the debate)  You may further explain that the scientific method can be employed whether or not an assumption of materialism only is adopted.  Thus perhaps you can defend why exactly is materialism only insisted upon by some in the scientific community?

In philosophy and science a static or infinite universe has been theorized for centuries, it is a fairly new concept (big bang cosmology) which has seemingly ended that particular line of thought (infinite universe) as a most likely contender for an accurate description of reality

"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read"   ---Groucho

botg, Science isn't

April 28, 2009 - 20:17 ET by hydrodynDM

botg,

Science isn't defined by the "scientific method". In fact, that method doesn't really describe how science actually works - it's something you teach kids in high school.

Any scientist will tell you that.

I've already gone over why science adopts a materialistic approach, but I'll do it again.

Supernatural (i.e. non-materialistic or non-natural) agents have properties which are, by definition, unknowable and unpredictable. If you incorporate such agents into a theory, there is no way to consistently derive unique consequences from such a theory that may then be used to test that theory. The ability to test (or potentially test) a theory is a necessary (but not sufficient) requirement for a scientific theory.

If you can give me an example of a physical (not necessarily materialistic) theory that incorporates a supernatural agent in a fundamental way that has unique, testable consequences, I'd love to hear about it.

(Again, I have to apologize for being so short - it's been a long week and it's only Tuesday)

as we have discussed hydro

April 28, 2009 - 20:32 ET by botg

any unknown is by definition unknown that is why we investigate.  Also true we can not know the unknowable properties but we can investigate the knowable properties.  Forensics is a branch of science that tests for intelligent agents all over the global on a daily basis, SETI is a search for intelligently propduced phenomina.

i would encourage you to read Dembski for a mathimatically oriented look at this.

Also and again there are no supernatural agents incorporated in the theory it is just that we don't desire to define the results BEFORE we test for them.  Why would you a-priori determine that certain results are not allowed?  Follow the science where it leads and do not force it to only conclude those answers that you decree acceptable

btw physical and material are synonymous how can anything be "physical (not necessarily materialistic)"

"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read"   ---Groucho

botg, Yes, we have

April 28, 2009 - 20:48 ET by hydrodynDM

botg,

Yes, we have discussed this before.

You say ID doesn't assume a supernatural agent (and you use forensics and SETI as analogous areas of research) - I say it does - and I've given an argument (a couple of times) for that.

I honestly don't remember how our last discussion ended off - but I'm willing to get back into it if you want (just not tonight).

To me, a physical theory is one that tries to explain something about the physical world. Creationism is a physical theory - but it isn't a "material" theory (or "natural" theory).

 

ok hydro

April 28, 2009 - 20:53 ET by botg

we'll get back to it later,

but why would you bring creationism into the discussion?  Perhaps i could dreg up alchemy?

"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read"   ---Groucho

botg, I brought it up

April 28, 2009 - 20:58 ET by hydrodynDM

botg,

I brought it up because you suggested that physical and material where the same - I came up with an example of where they aren't.

That's all.

OK, I'm out of here. Take care, botg.

okay hydro

April 28, 2009 - 21:02 ET by botg

good luck with the grading, God bless

"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read"   ---Groucho

Again, peace :)

April 28, 2009 - 20:29 ET by Kelly72

I assure you that I mean exactly what I say:   My wish for you is a sound philosophical education.  It would be of great benefit, but it is not something that can be provided by me in this format.  Obviously.  I cannot do the work for you.  I sincerely hope that you will do it.  That's all.

Many of the Peripatetic philosophers recognized the idea of "eternal procession" as a natural extension or realization of "potentiality" and "actuality".

But now I see the problem.  One must believe in reality in order to understand it.  If you do not unequivocally believe in reality, then there is no possibility for rational discussion.  Nothing can be accomplished.

As I stated, we have gotten to a point where further discussion between us at this time would not be beneficial. 

If you ever decide that you believe in reality, please feel free to send me a PM and I will gladly resume a respectful discussion.   A respectful discussion is always enjoyable, and I do want to thank you for all your sincere comments and responses.  I wish you well. 

Yes, I know the feeling of being overworked.  :)  Good luck.

Kelly72, Well, I never

April 28, 2009 - 20:29 ET by hydrodynDM

Kelly72,

Well, I never said I was an anti-realist (which would actually be a little odd considering I work in science) but I agree that this discussion has probably gone as far as it can.

I appreciate the time and your responses.

Take care.

:)

April 28, 2009 - 20:35 ET by Kelly72

Heh.  Yeah I thought so, too, but anyway...

All the best.  :)

Good evening Hydro

April 27, 2009 - 22:09 ET by cocodrie

Thanks for a great discussion. I'm not sure the existence of God can be proven using only physical means. What I see as proof stems from my faith in God.

My belief in God is based on faith and on my life's experiences. Hebrews chapter 11 reads "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." It is impossible to believe in God without faith.

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

Hi

April 27, 2009 - 22:24 ET by Kelly72

Thanks cocodrie. 

People are all different, and I think Hydro needs something else as a beginning point.  I understand your comments :) but I'm guessing that Hydro would see it from a different perspective.  So I just wanted to assist by providing a beginning point for objective study, and to make it known that it's possible for anyone to do this.  It's been a good discussion.   

Kelly72 and

April 28, 2009 - 19:13 ET by hydrodynDM

Kelly72 and cocodrie,

Actually, I agree with what cocodrie said regarding faith vs proof in God 100%.

(Thanks cocodrie for the response)

Okey dokey  :)

April 28, 2009 - 20:26 ET by Kelly72

Okey dokey  :)

I had expected more from you.

April 25, 2009 - 10:48 ET by Mike Bratton

Making unfortunate extrapolations as you have fails to advance the discussion.  Nevertheless, we'll move past your straw men, to your empty, unsupported definition of faith.

You attempted to define faith as belief that is wholly devoid of fact, as "faith in faith" rather than in something else.  In the case of Christianity (which reminds me of C.S. Lewis' "The Case For Christianity," something I encourage you to read in its entirety), there is a factual basis for it.  That is, unless you want to posit that Jesus Christ was not a genuine historical figure.  And that He did not make the claims He is documented as making.  And that those claims were not supported by actions.

On the subject of defining faith, I hope you don't mind me quoting myself.  This became a subject of conversation on my blog in 2006, when the assertion was mistakenly made that we Christians are people of faith to the exclusion of being "people of fact."  I quote my response to that assertion thusly, and like so:

A reply to my "21st Century malady" article was particularly interesting, so I thought it would be appropriate to reply to it in a more open fashion, rather than in a comment thread. Here is the reply, quoted thusly and like so:

"Those of us who are Christians are, by definition, people of fact."

You are wrong Mike. In fact, it's the exact opposite. "Those of use who are Christians are, by definition, people of FAITH.". The Darwist and the Humanist would say that he is the person of "fact".

Sounds right, doesn't it? The Bible is loaded to the brim with references to faith. Faith is a fundamental part of Christianity. So why in the world would I say that those of us who are Christians are people of "fact"?

Because every person is a "person of faith," even if that person chooses not to admit it.

To reference the above-quoted observation, the Darwinist is a person of faith. He or she invests his or her faith in the notion that, given enough time, amoeba can become accountants. The Darwinist has no facts to work with, no transitional forms that would give evidence of between-species evolution, nothing but the dogged belief that organic life, in defiance of a basic law of physics, gets more complex over time.

The Humanist has even less to work with. He or she invests his or her faith in the notion that human beings are basically wonderful. Did you know there's a Humanist Manifesto? Absolutely, and organized Humanism does Darwinism one better; the tail end of their Manifesto reads thusly: "We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow."

Does anyone know of any facts that would have motivated anyone to think that human beings, in and of themselves, are ever going to turn this planet into a Utopia?

Didn't think so. Me either.

Darwinists put their faith in random chance. Humanists put their faith in human goodness. Those of us who are Christians, to the contrary, put our faith in facts--in a set of undeniable truths. We are not merely "people of faith," because everyone possesses a faith which must be invested, either in something or someone. Or, in our case, Someone. We have put our faith in the fact that "God became flesh, and dwelt among us," and thus made a way for us to have an everlasting, saving relationship with Him.

Faith and facts are not polar opposites. As Adrian Rogers used to say, "Faith in faith is positive thinking." Faith in Christ leads to salvation.

And that is a fact. 

 

Hopefully, that will give you something substantive to examine and discuss.  I look forward to that.

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

Mike Bratton, You

April 25, 2009 - 14:21 ET by hydrodynDM

Mike Bratton,

You said:

I had expected more from you. Making unfortunate extrapolations as you have fails to advance the discussion. Nevertheless, we'll move past your straw men,...

So, in other words, you have no substantive reply to my criticism of your made up rule about online discussions, my clarification of what an agnostic is or my views on the epistemological status of moral codes.

No, instead, you simply call them "straw men" arguments and decide to move on. Could you explain to me how exactly my arguments suffer from this fallacy? Please? With a cherry on top?

Here, let me just translate your opening remarks for you.

"Um, I have no response so I'll just call them fallacious, hope that no one notices I have no response and start discussing a topic that wasn't even a part of the discussion because I can cut and paste something from my blog."

You know, I expected more from you.

I like this comment of yours:

You attempted to define faith as belief that is wholly devoid of fact, ...

Really? I did that? Where exactly?

It's incredibly ironic that you would accuse me of engaging in straw man arguments and then you turn around and do just that.

You said

That is, unless you want to posit that Jesus Christ was not a genuine
historical figure.  And that He did not make the claims He is
documented as making.  And that those claims were not supported by
actions.

I believe that Jesus Christ was a genuine historical figure. But I have found no compelling reason to accept the description of his nature and his deeds as laid out in religious texts and teachings. I also don't deny that those claims might be true. You see - that's what makes me an agnostic on this topic.

Since you quoted yourself about the nature of faith, allow me to do the same. I posted this a couple of years ago here in the forum section. It has to do with science in general and I know it's a bit of a read, but near the end, I have a section called "Science and Religion and Truth".

If you read it, you will see that I actually agree with you regarding the importance of faith in science.

What I find strange about the quoted passage in your last post is that, after pointing out that accepting Darwinism or Humanism requires faith, you simply assert that belief in Christianity doesn't. Granted, you say "faith in facts" but, then, how is that faith? It isn't. You're just playing with words. You're basically just asserting that Christianity is based on the truth.

You don't elaborate on this - you just say it. You don't back up this claim in any way.

Wow, that's quite the argument.

And as an aside - your little derisive comments at the beginnings of your posts to me don't really help your argument in any way. They don't faze me and given the fact that you tend to ignore the actual points I make in my posts, they make you look foolish. If you want to pretend that you're running circles around me, that's fine. Others reading this can decide if that's actually the case.

Terrible, isn't it?

April 25, 2009 - 22:47 ET by Mike Bratton

I know, it's just horrible.  But cutting to the chase has that potential.  Now, I could take a lot of time, and meticulously address your various points, something I don't mind doing when I have the time.  But if the trend holds, as soon as I do, they traditional response will be that I'm full of beans (just like other Christians/conservatives/Republicans/right-wing extremist terrorists).  Of course, if I move to the common substance of your observations, there's the potential for the "Oh, my arguments were so brilliant, you were blinded and unable to respond!" retort, combined with the "What he really meant to say..." bit of "translation" nonsense illustrated in your most recent post.  

This time, I positioned my remarks to get the latter response, for two reasons.  First, I have quite a lot on my plate; and second, because your objections have an obvious common root--and it's more efficient to address the root than the various branches.

For whatever reason, be it dodge or something less sophisticated, you missed the point.  I didn't say that belief in Christianity "doesn't" require faith.  As a matter of fact, I said quite the opposite.  Here, let me quote myself once again, more specifically, thusly and like so.

First off, with regards to the exhibition of faith in the lives of those who "love them some evolution": "[T]he Darwinist is a person of faith. He or she invests his or her faith in the notion that, given enough time, amoeba can become accountants. "  With regards to the unrealistic beliefs of a Humanist, "He or she invests his or her faith in the notion that human beings are basically wonderful."

Even though I find it hard to believe you brought such a lack of comprehension to the table, it is possible you missed the crux of the matter.  So, here it is, again: Everyone has faith in something.  Another quote: "Darwinists put their faith in random chance. Humanists put their faith in human goodness. Those of us who are Christians, to the contrary, put our faith in facts--in a set of undeniable truths. We are not merely "people of faith," because everyone possesses a faith which must be invested, either in something or someone. Or, in our case, Someone. We have put our faith in the fact that "God became flesh, and dwelt among us," and thus made a way for us to have an everlasting, saving relationship with Him."

We Christians are not like Darwinists or Humanists, or even agnostics or atheists.  We don't invest our faith in a belief system that is overwhelmed by factual evidence against it, as they have, and as you have.  We Christians invest our faith in Jesus, Who has an overwhelming amount of factual evidence in favor of His claims.

I know you believe the so-called "agnostic" position to be tenable, but it isn't.  A response to the claims of Jesus Christ is a binary one--either you reject Him or you accept Him.  The middle ground you believe you've staked out doesn't exist, which is why I've reiterated previously that the difference between atheism and agnosticism is one of intensity, not of kind.  The agnostic is in the same boat as the atheist, just not as committed to rowing in the wrong direction. 

Oh, and I don't know where the "[your comments] don't faze me" business comes from, but I've never come close to trying to denigrate you, so perhaps you can avoid that line of comment?  You have been fooled by things you've been taught in the past, and I'm presenting ideas I trust you will embrace in the future.  If I didn't care about you, I wouldn't engage you in conversation.

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport.com 

Mike Bratton, Well, that

April 26, 2009 - 12:58 ET by hydrodynDM

Mike Bratton,

Well, that first paragraph is a very well stated justification for the fact that you can't address my counter arguments. I'll be sure to use it the next time I'm at a conference and someone asks me to clarify some aspect of my work. "I would elaborate", I'll say "but that would lead to a lot of tedious details and I don't really have the time and I'm sure you would just end up calling me names and stuff".

You say

Of course, if I move to the common substance of your observations,
there's the potential for the "Oh, my arguments were so brilliant, you
were blinded and unable to respond!"

OK. Prove me wrong. Take any one of my specific points and address it. Just one. Tell me where I'm wrong. In fact, let me help you out. Considering that you bring up the topic of what it means to be an agnostic (again) in this last post of yours, how about you specifically explain to me how my particle example (a counter argument from a previous post) is flawed.

I'd be willing to bet you will totally ignore this request.

Let's look at the following statements:

I didn't say that belief in Christianity "doesn't" require faith.

and

Those of us who are Christians, to the contrary, put our faith in facts--in a set of undeniable truths.

Despite your suggestion that I'm too dumb to get it and that I'm missing the point, I'll again ask what I asked in my previous post (which, of course, you didn't bother to specifically address) - how is "faith" in "facts" faith?

You seem to have this habit of adopting definitions for words a) that aren't generally accepted or are flat out wrong and b) that tend to fit nicely into your arguments. Unfortunately, there are these things called dictionaries. Let's see what my dictionary says about faith:

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Well. If that had said "belief in something for which there is proof" - as in "facts" - then your definition would be correct. But it isn't.

So I'll say what I said before - you are just playing with words.

You said:

Even though I find it hard to believe you brought such a lack of
comprehension to the table, it is possible you missed the crux of the
matter.  So, here it is, again: Everyone has faith in something.

Um, did you even bother to look at that forum post I linked to? I'm thinking not, because if you did, you would see that I agree with your statement that "Everyone has faith in something". So, who's the one that lacks "comprehension" here?

Let's move on

A response to the claims of Jesus Christ is a binary one--either you
reject Him or you accept Him.  The middle ground you believe you've
staked out doesn't exist, which is why I've reiterated previously that
the difference between atheism and agnosticism is one of intensity, not
of kind.

Yes, I know you said this before. Which is why I gave a counter argument (you know, that whole particle thing). Now the next step would be for you to explain how that argument is flawed. But, you see, you didn't take that step. Instead, you just repeat your original position. Your argumentative skills are truly stunning.

This was interesting

Oh, and I don't know where the "[your comments] don't faze me" business
comes from, but I've never come close to trying to denigrate you,...

To quote you:

"I understand that it may be uncomfortable for you...but digging such holes as you're in often is.  And I'm not trying to
pound on you, personally, but you are in a bit of a quandry, and very
much in need of correction and assistance."

I'll admit I've adopted a snarky attitude with you but, unlike you, I have no problem admitting that. If you don't consider the above a belittling statement, then you must live in a world where you're given free rein to talk down to people and no one calls you on it.

Lastly

You have been fooled by things you've been taught in the past, and I'm presenting ideas I trust you will embrace in the future.

Oddly, I could say the same think to you. But you know what? I wouldn't, because I'm not that arrogant.

Look, here's the deal, hydro.

April 26, 2009 - 19:20 ET by Mike Bratton

Your responses are according to Hoyle, all right?  I feel bad about observing it, but pretending they're not part of a long-established pattern would just be doing you a disservice.  I know it bothers you, and I'm sorry that it does, but I'm just being honest.

So that you won't feel completely passed by, and thus falsely positive that your observations are unassailable, pick a point.  To coin a phrase, hit me with your best shot--tell me what you think is your strongest agnosto-proof, and we'll look together at its Swiss cheese construction.  Will that work for you?

"Despite your suggestion that I'm too dumb to get it and that I'm missing the point, I'll again ask what I asked in my previous post (which, of course, you didn't bother to specifically address) - how is "faith" in "facts" faith?"

Because that's a viable place to put one's faith, and thanks for asking.  (I haven't once suggested you're dumb, so I'll ask again--please don't go down that road.)  Would you rather see people put their faith in the notion that, given time, two plus two will arithmetically equal twenty-two?  Of course you wouldn't.  And despite the propaganda that's out there, Christianity never asks people to expect the spiritual equivalent of such an equation.  

"Well. If that had said "belief in something for which there is proof" - as in "facts" - then your definition would be correct. But it isn't."

Do you honestly take the cues for how you live your life from Webster's Unabridged?

Even your own life's experiences dispute such a specious definition, if you pause to consider a few things.  When you sit down in a chair, you put your faith in that chair, do you not?  

Is there any potential, reasonable expectation--however slight--that the chair will give way?  Of course there is.  You've seen chairs break in the past; you may have had one collapse on you before.  And certainly you've seen it happen at least once on "America's Funniest Home Videos."  Nevertheless, when you see an innocent chair just sitting there, unoccupied, you stroll right up and have a seat.  Doing so is an investment of faith.  Even if you pull back the upholstering from the structure of the chair and examine it with a magnifying glass, if you're going to sit in the thing, you have to place faith in its ability to support you.  And that faith is grounded in facts.

You don't agree that "everyone has faith in something," because you have a mistaken notion regarding what faith is.  That's what we're talking about.

The hole you're digging is just that much deeper, but I'm happy to jump in it with you.  Now, decide what your best point is, and let's examine it.  Together.

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport.com 

Oh, and while I'm thinking about definitions, hydro...

April 27, 2009 - 13:30 ET by Mike Bratton

...there's only one proper definition of faith, and it's even older that Noah Webster--who, as a matter of fact, was a Christian himself.  Quoting thusly, and like so:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Substance, and evidence.  There's faith for you.  And I'm still hoping to hear back from you; e-mail me, if you prefer.

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

Mike, You know, normally

April 27, 2009 - 18:34 ET by hydrodynDM

Mike,

You know, normally I would do my thing of going through each of your points and addressing them but in this case I won't. The reason is that I'm convinced that you don't actually read what I write. Here's how I came to this conclusion:

In your last post, you wrote:

To coin a phrase, hit me with your best shot--tell me what you think is
your strongest agnosto-proof, and we'll look together at its Swiss
cheese construction.  Will that work for you?

OK, Mike. I want you to go back to my previous post and, starting from the top, find the paragraph that starts "OK. Prove me wrong". In fact, I'll quote it here for you:

OK. Prove me wrong. Take any one of my specific points and address it.
Just one. Tell me where I'm wrong. In fact, let me help you out.
Considering that you bring up the topic of what it means to be an
agnostic (again) in this last post of yours, how about you specifically
explain to me how my particle example (a counter argument from a
previous post) is flawed. 

Now I want you to read that. Then read it again. Now go up and read that quote from your last post.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

In case you don't, let me explain. I point blank asked you to tell me what was wrong with a specific argument I made regarding the definition of the word "agnostic". Instead of actually doing that, you... ask me to pick one of my arguments for you to go over.

Do you see why I've come to the conclusion that you don't actually read my posts?

Honestly, when I read your last post, I thought I was being put on. It occurred to me that you might be an old friend of mine who, knowing I post here, signed on just to mess with me.

But if that isn't the case, then I'll point out some other things I've come to realize about you, Mike, that have made me realize how utterly pointless this discussion has become:

1) Rather than specifically pointing out how my arguments are wrong, you simply state that they are. You even go so far as to explain why you won't bother to give counter arguments to my points. This tells me that you aren't interested in an actual discussion. You're only interested in lecturing to me.

2) You see nothing wrong with adopting definitions for words that are not generally accepted and when asked to reconcile your definitions with those in a dictionary, you dismiss the dictionary definition as irrelevant. This is incredibly problematic since I can never really be sure what you are trying to argue.

3) When it was pointed out that you had mistakenly conflated some of my comments with Utherpend's, rather than simply admitting the mistake and moving on, you make up some bizarre rule about how online discussions are conducted to try to make it look as if I was in the wrong. This suggests to me that you are the kind of person who will never - ever - admit to making a mistaken on any matter. 

Now before you start telling me about how much of a hole I've dug myself into and how much you really do care and that you just want to help me realize how weak and flawed all of uninformed views about life are and that I shouldn't just give up and shy away from the brilliance of your words - I actually will continue with this if you want to.

Let me know and I'll go back to your previous post and address each comment and do what I've been doing. But just so you know, this is no longer a discussion for me. It's more of a little experiment.

And we'll perform that experiment, together.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

April 27, 2009 - 22:43 ET by Mike Bratton

Yes, I read what you write, but you don't write a whole lot that's original.  Again, I hate to be blunt, but you're just serving up the same tired anti-Christian propaganda that's been floating around, well, for roughly the same amount of time there's been a Christian faith.

I wanted to be polite about it, but since you feel your analogy is loaded with the sweet goodness of gravitas, you must think that's your best shot.  All right, then.  Your subatomic particle reference is a mental exercise--a thought experiment.  (I conducted one of those with my children this afternoon, as a matter of fact, and they enjoyed it very much.)  Unfortunately, your effort falls apart right around the time you say "we don't have the ability to detect" your thought-experiment particle.  

However, your analogy is easy to fix: All you have to do is change the thought experiment to a little recent history.  We can even keep the original reference to subatomic particles, how about that?

Excellent.  

I'm guessing you're familiar with neutrinos, are you not?  They were once part of a thought experiment, too, but one that was attempting to answer questions, rather than question answers.  

Over time, methodology was developed to detect neutrinos, by observing in minute detail the effects they had on their surrounding environment.  It has now been demonstrated that neutrinos exist, and that vast numbers of them fly through our bodies every day.  We cannot see them so much as we can know about them by their effects.  And it is through persistence that their effects have been detected.

Objective morality exists, hydro.  You must, however, exhibit some persistence in realizing it, rather than unquestioningly ingesting the thoughts of hopeless people who only want your company, not what's best for you. 

More to the point, we cannot see God these days so much as we can know Him by His effects.  He has communicated with humanity in a gathering of 66 books that, together, are the most popular Book in the planet's history.  He has intervened in our history in a personal way, so much so that He is the central figure in the planet's history. And though the attacks on God and on His followers have ranged over the millennia from the subtle to the gross, that Book still persists, and His influence still reverberates.

I know it's not the analogy you started with, but at least it works now.

With regard to "dictionary definitions," I think we've heard enough protestation from you in that regard.  Your reliance on it with regard to the issue of faith was shown to be misplaced by the chair you sat in while (or after) reading my last post.  Since the Hebrews definition of faith is about two thousand years more authoritative than wherever you cut-and-pasted your definition from, it's safe to say that faith is, indeed, about substance and evidence.  Or, at least it should be.  And as you can see, I didn't exactly pull it out of thin air.

And with regard to your taking up Utherpend's mantle, if you wanted to distance yourself from any of his declarations, you had every opportunity to do so.  You did not seize upon that opportunity.  It's getting repetitive to hear how you really want to move away from his declaration of superiority when you've done nothing from your initial insinuation into the conversation but advance it.  

I do find it fascinating how I'm supposed to admit to making mistakes I haven't made in the first place to someone who doesn't believe there's an objective standard of morality in which to label things as "right" or "wrong," as "correct" or "mistaken."  Apparently, there's enough objective morality for you to toss it at others as if it were a brickbat, right?

Your best refutation of objective morality, hydro, failed to launch.

Objectively speaking.  

However, you did stumble over a pebble of your own hypocrisy in defending it.  But that's in the past.  Now, shall we continue?

--Mike  

www.thebrattonreport...

Mike Bratton, I just want

April 28, 2009 - 19:46 ET by hydrodynDM

Mike Bratton,

I just want to remind you what that particle analogy was about, because you obviously have forgotten.

hydrodynDM's Position: Agnostics neither deny nor affirm the existence of God.

Mike Bratton's Position: Religious Agnostics and Atheists both deny the existence of God.

hydrodynDM's Counter Argument: Let's assume a scientist predicts the existence of a particle and let's assume that particle's existence hasn't yet been confirmed experimentally because the equipment necessary to detect it doesn't yet exist. Until that equipment is developed and those experiments conducted, no one can say for sure whether the particle exists or not. In other words, everyone is agnostic about the ontological status of that particle - they can neither deny it exists nor affirm that it does.

Mike Bratton's Response: I'm going to question your assumption about whether the particle can be detected and give you a history lesson about the neutrino.

Wow. First off, my analogy wasn't a "thought experiment". I'd ask you to look up what that is but I know you don't put much importance in definitions. Second, my so called "thought experiment" reflects what's actually going on in physics right now with regard to something called the Higgs Boson.

Let me give you a little history lesson. The Higgs Boson was predicted to exist back in the '60. However, the energy needed to create these particles in a way detectable to physicists had not yet been achieved. It is hoped that the LHC at CERN might have that ability, but as of right now, it hasn't happened.

So let me ask you something - does the Higgs Boson exist?

Please mark one of the following:

___ Yes

___ No

___ I don't know

If your response is "I don't know" then guess what? You are.... wait for it... agnostic on the issue of whether the Higgs exists or not.

Consequently - being an agnostic about the ontological status of A doesn't mean you deny the existence of A.

Get it?

(I'll assume you aren't stupid enough to answer Yes or No - but I almost hope you do).

I think this is the part where you tell me how anti-Christian and unoriginal I am.

Oh, and with regard to your chair argument - you do know that there is a difference between having faith in something that has obtained and having faith in something that hasn't, right?

Let me explain. An event that has "obtained" (or occurred or happened or is - I'm using the word in the philosophical sense) can be said to be "fact" (in some sense) and so doesn't require "faith" (using the almost universally accepted definition of faith - you being the one exception, of course).

An event that hasn't obtained isn't an established fact and so can warrant faith.

Now, is this the part where I say how simple that was and how weak your argument is and blah blah blah?

Oh, I love this:

And with regard to your taking up Utherpend's mantle, if you wanted to
distance yourself from any of his declarations, you had every
opportunity to do so.  You did not seize upon that opportunity.  It's
getting repetitive to hear how you really want to move away from his
declaration of superiority when you've done nothing from your initial
insinuation into the conversation but advance it.

Wow - you're still clinging to this. How about you go back to this post and explain how my argument involving "Person A" and "Person B" doesn't demonstrate how ridiculous your assertion that I have to support what Utherpend said is.

And really - I haven't distinguished (or "distanced") myself from Utherpend? Well, let's see. Utherpend said he was an atheist. Interesting. Most of our discussion has involved me trying to explain to you why atheists (what Utherpend is) and agnostics (what I am) are different. Also interesting.

How much more do I need to do to "distance" myself from Utherpend? Move to Neptune?

This is a gem:

I do find it fascinating how I'm supposed to admit to making mistakes I
haven't made in the first place to someone who doesn't believe there's
an objective standard of morality in which to label things as "right"
or "wrong," as "correct" or "mistaken."  Apparently, there's enough
objective morality for you to toss it at others as if it were a
brickbat, right?

I'm sure you were probably very proud of yourself for finding this supposed contradiction or example of hypocrisy. Except that notions of "right" and "wrong" in the context of a discussion actually fall under the topic of informal logic (or occasionally just logic) and not morality. 

You see - you seem to be confusing "right" in the sense of "morally right" with "right" in the sense of "valid".

When I used the word "mistake" in my previous post, I was obviously using it in sense of "valid".

Care to admit you were mistaken about that?

I won't hold my breath.

Lastly:

Your best refutation of objective morality, hydro, failed to launch. 

As an agnostic, I don't refute the existence of objective morality. I know the fact that I've said that now like four or five times doesn't really register with you since you insist that I do reject objective morality based on your definition of agnostic which I've told you I (and everyone in the universe) don't accept, but...

Oh, never mind.

Oh, I almost forgot. Sadly, your arguments are riddled with holes which are filled with pebbles which you trip over like a rocket that can't launch or something... 

I can't blame myself for trying.

April 29, 2009 - 09:55 ET by Mike Bratton

But at the core of the problem is this--you have accepted the errant notion that faith, particularly the Christian faith, is wishful thinking.

It is not.  

What has been endlessly fascinating to me, and something I have waited for you to at least acknowledge, is that your supposedly ironclad, settled, "almost universally accepted definition" for Christain faith, cut-and-pasted from Merriam-Webster, isn't even the primary definition of the word.  You picked what you wanted, and ignored the majority of even your supposedly unassailable source material.

Imagine that.

The entire definition, quoted thusly and like so:

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith> 

 

According to your own source, faith is something invested "in" or "to" something.  Your own source does not suggest that faith is exclusively belief with no proof, something you consistently push.

A friend of mine used to rightly observe that "to make part of the truth all of the truth is to make even that part of the truth an untruth." You've been pushing an untruth, hydro, and hanging your hat on something insubstantial.  When you're interested in really, seriously talking about that, I'm at your service.

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

Mike Bratton, I'm a

April 29, 2009 - 16:51 ET by hydrodynDM

Mike Bratton,

I'm a little pressed for time today, so I will respond to your post more fully tomorrow.

But, in the mean time...

I noticed that you didn't respond to (among other things) my argument about what it means to be an agnostic (you know, that whole Higgs Boson thing).

I'm a little disappointed.

In a previous post, you said:

To coin a phrase, hit me with your best shot--tell me what you think is
your strongest agnosto-proof, and we'll look together at its Swiss
cheese construction.  Will that work for you?

We'll, if you are trying to spare my feelings by not pointing out the "Swiss cheese construction" of that argument, don't worry. I can take it.

Now maybe you just didn't have the time to comment on that particular argument (or the one about your chair analogy or the thing about Utherpend or the difference between "morally right" and "valid"), but I hope you can find the time in the next day to explain to me just where my Higgs particle argument goes wrong.

Apparently we're concluded here.

April 29, 2009 - 23:49 ET by Mike Bratton

When you get responses that cut past your agnosticism, hydro, you really short out.  Your "argument" wasn't even a mildly agitated disagreement, it had flaws, and those were addressed.  

This isn't Argumentation and Debate class, whoever you are, but rather an examination of fundamentals.  Life and death issues, yet you are far more interested in semantic games.

When "Golly, we really don't know" is the best answer you have for the big questions of human existence, the conclusion waiting out there for you--if you have the courage to follow your worldview to its logical conclusion--is that your life is meaningless.

Now, I don't believe that about you, but in your current state of affairs, you're forced to believe that about yourself. 

If you honestly, sincerely want to talk, message me.  

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

§ Bratton....Nice Retort.

April 30, 2009 - 00:10 ET by TheSter

Sweet.

Us rugularz rEpublikans Kant tYpe wheeNz Wez draGG da clUbs...

..gRUnt....UUUUUGAAA...ohhhhHHoOGAA...

Ster.

My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.

You know Mike, ... When I

April 30, 2009 - 05:57 ET by hydrodynDM

You know Mike, ...

When I put up that last post, I figured you would do one of two things - either totally ignore it or comment on some other topic. Either way, I knew you wouldn't address my Higgs argument and what it implies about being agnostic.

But you actually took it a step beyond that and claim that:

Your "argument" wasn't even a mildly agitated disagreement, it had flaws, and those were addressed.

Really? You addressed the flaws in my Higgs argument?

Well, you did address my original particle argument with that laughable point about neutrinos. In a nut shell, your counter argument was based on questioning an assumption in my argument - whether there are, in fact, particles that haven't been detected yet.

Anyone with even a casual knowledge of science knows that there are - the Higgs being an example.

So, no. You haven't pointed out any flaws in that argument, let alone addressed them.

You said

This isn't Argumentation and Debate class, whoever you are, but rather
an examination of fundamentals.  Life and death issues, yet you are far
more interested in semantic games.

I went back through our post just to remind myself of what we've been discussing. The beginning was a bit muddled because you were confusing Utherpend's comments with mine (I know you will never admit to making that mistake, but anyone with half a brain reading these posts knows that that's what happened).

Once that was squared away, we've mostly discussed the idea of objective morality and the meanings of the words "agnostic" and "faith" (since those are tied into the morality argument).

Some might call that "arguing semantics". The term "arguing semantics" is usually used to denote a pointless argument, but not in this case. When two people are arguing a topic, it's assumed that they both agree on the meanings of words or terms that are fundamental to that argument. That obviously hasn't been the case here.

Your definition of "agnostic" is flat out wrong. I've shown that with my Higgs argument and, despite your assertion to the contrary, you haven't pointed out any flaws in that argument. You know it and are just unwilling to admit it.

Your definition of "faith" is based on the idea that it actually makes sense to make a statement like "I have faith in the fact that ...", which is just bizarre. However, I am willing to continue that argument (picking up from this post) if you would like.

And no, I will not "message" you to continue this argument. If you can kick my butt in this argument (something you've made a habit of claiming you've been doing), I have no problem letting everyone see it.

But this comment really hurt my feelings, Mike

When "Golly, we really don't know" is the best answer you have for the
big questions of human existence, the conclusion waiting out there for
you--if you have the courage to follow your worldview to its logical
conclusion--is that your life is meaningless.

Ouch, dude. Very ouch. But hey. I guess if you can't claim victory in an online argument, it makes sense to claim victory on the "big question of human existence", right Mike?

And now for the big KO

Now, I don't believe that about you, but in your current state of affairs, you're forced to believe that about yourself. 

Wow. I have a lot to think about. You know, I'm supposed to go into work this morning to administer an exam but I suddenly can't find the motivation to care anymore.

Well, sarcasm aside, you felt compelled to make an observation about me, so I'll do the same.

I think, deep down inside, you are insecure about your intelligence. You so desperately need to believe that you are always right that the idea of actually admitting you are wrong - even about totally insignificant things like confusing my comments with Utherpend's - simply doesn't register in your head.

Your view of things are so extreme, that you can't even admit that saying "Golly, we really don't know" about certain topics is a valid standpoint. In your mind, admitting that you just don't know amounts so say that you aren't smart - and we can't have that, can we Mike?

Now, having said all that, I'll freely admit that I don't know you and I'm probably wrong in my assessment of you. (See who easy that was?)

I only did it to show you how arrogant you have to be to comment on the life of someone you've never met and know next to nothing about.

I know you basically said that our argument is concluded, but I really hope it isn't. I, for one, am really enjoying this.

Last I checked...

April 23, 2009 - 10:58 ET by Mike Bratton

...the only serious "litmus test" regarding religion affecting politics is advocated by people who want to exclude any religious perspective from political discourse.

The real intolerance is in mindsets which suggest that those of us who are Christians (and let's be frank, the conversation is not about any other group, by and large) should keep our Biblically-based political observations to ourselves, out of the arena of ideas, and leave the serious business of politics and government to people whose worldviews provide no answers to anything of real significance, much less the relatively simple business of governing.

And this "it's a matter of private conscience" nonsense gets old.  It's really "Don't ask, don't tell" applied to faith, an attempt to tar Christianity and label it as something as detrimental as a sexual deviancy.  How is it that "private conscience" comes up only from groups and individuals that want to squelch Christian participation in the political process?  

As Christians, we have one mandate--to share the Gospel as we have opportunity.  This "private conscience" charade is only an attempt to countermand that mandate.

The young author kept an open mind; I encourage non-Christians of other political affiliations to be so daring.

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

The Founding Fathers

April 23, 2009 - 11:39 ET by ForeverOnTheRight

ahusser, I dare say that the founding fathers would disagree with your sentiment about religion not having its place in politics. If I were a scholar in the matter or had a ready reference to quote from, I'd show you why I say this. Your sentiment is quite modern and not in agreement with the founding fathers, and is influenced by liberal thought. My sentiment is that we as a country we should maintain not only the original meaning of the constitution but maintain that philosophy of the founding fathers, otherwise this country will cease to be a republic as it was founded.

Start with de

April 23, 2009 - 15:11 ET by HockeyKid

Start with de Tocqueville.  He wrote extensively on the nature of the American experiment and faith's role in the success or failure of that experiment, beginning with the founding. 

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

Kudos to him for actually

April 22, 2009 - 21:37 ET by seawardgator

Kudos to him for actually doing some investigating on a subject he wanted to reports on.  Don't bother sending the resume' to CNN.

Brain-washed, or traitor?

April 23, 2009 - 08:56 ET by Galvanic

As they regularly demonstrate, Leftists already have the answers before they begin an investigation.

Mr. Roose has angered them because he actually did some personal investigation before he drew his conclusions.

Having rejected his findings, they are now discrediting him.  The more generous attribute it to brain-washing.  Others will brand him a traitor.

CNN couldn't use a liberal

April 22, 2009 - 21:43 ET by irishguy

CNN couldn't use a liberal with an open mind.  I  haven't met one yet, give the young man some credit for that.

Actually, none of this is

April 22, 2009 - 21:44 ET by balboa

Actually, none of this is disturbing at all. I think it's great that he decided to do this, and I'm really not all that surprised at what he found.

Did they Twitter?

April 22, 2009 - 21:53 ET by Pam

Did they Twitter? Did they use electricity? Did they eat with utensils?

Nice!  On a serious note, kudos to this young man for being mature enough to study a subject.  

Leave it to the all

April 22, 2009 - 21:57 ET by bigtimer

Leave it to the all encompassing loving left to trash this fellow...how dare he!

They aren't satisfied unless you are indoctrinated by the leftist college professors, this has to be put to a halt and fast...O will take care of that...worry not!

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

there's a chance

April 22, 2009 - 22:23 ET by goldbough

Sounds like there's a chance this guy will turn from liberalism once he sees how they react to his findings.

Must be nice to have the

April 22, 2009 - 22:56 ET by RR GOP

Must be nice to have the free time and the money to enroll in a different university for a semester on a lark.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).

**Kevin Roose

April 22, 2009 - 22:58 ET by pelicanmarsh

Good for you, Kevin.  You went to LU to find hatred and intolerance.  And you did-- after the Left found out that you really didn't.

Funny how that played out, isn't it?  Is the irony lost on you?

 

"Tell your liberal mom that I told her it was over between us, and to stop sending me money and nude photos."

The first round of Kool-Aid must have worn off

April 22, 2009 - 23:04 ET by suburbanite

Get that man another round of Kool-Aid, stat!

"Fight the good fight every moment
It's your only way"  Triumph

Smart Kid

April 23, 2009 - 00:34 ET by Forest for the Trees

Good to see that even though he set out to prove one thing, he was open-minded enough himself to evaluate his own experiences, grow from them, and have the kind of integrity to report the truth. 

Congratulations Kevin Roose for doing your own research and reporting the facts.  Best of luck to you in your future. 

Should the Right adopt this tactic?

April 23, 2009 - 04:29 ET by Sergeant ROCK

It would seem that the left's tactic of intolerance while claiming to be tolerant is working for them. There are endless number of examples of this and yet, it seems their numbers are growing with the most recent result being the election of the biggest idiot ever to occupy the Whitehouse.

Fight fire with fire? 

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

No. I don't think the

April 23, 2009 - 07:59 ET by Apache

No. I don't think the numbers are growing. They are just coming out of the shadows. Reality will drive them back into the shadows and decrease their numbers. Just honestly reporting both sides will be enough. The snarky liberal talking heads are losing viewers.

Absolutely not, Sergeant.

April 23, 2009 - 11:12 ET by Mike Bratton

My experience has shown that the best way to fight a fire is with water.  To indulge the analogy, a firebreak can be used in a controlled burn to take fuel away from a rampaging fire, but it is far less effective in actually dousing the fire itself.

We have (or are supposed to have) a different set of tools.  Ours is not to burn, but to build and to steward.  Conservatism is not the flame of irresponsibility, but rather the fountain of duty and honor.

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

**Sergeant ROCK

April 23, 2009 - 11:54 ET by pelicanmarsh

I like it.

Keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer.   Nothing wrong with a wolf in sheep's clothing as long as you're the wolf.

From a military standpoint, this theory works quite well.  And if this isn't a war that boils down to right vs. wrong, than I don't know what war really is. 

 

"Listen, I told that cow of a liberal mom that you have that it was over between us, and she needs to stop sending me money and nude photos."

Right vs Wrong

April 23, 2009 - 13:10 ET by Sergeant ROCK

I know what you mean. There are too many on the right (allegedly) willing to grab their ankles in the hopes of receiving fair treatment from those on the left somewhere down the line. I can't recall, off the top of my head, where this strategy has worked. This is the 'Read My Lips' syndrome.

The irony is that while those on the right are decalring that the left does not understand that militant Islam is in a war with the U.S., the right is not understanding that the left is at war with us!

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

Open to change

April 23, 2009 - 07:24 ET by Blogger Guy00001

At least he was open to change. He admitted the truth, unlike most liberals who deny the truth even when it's in front of their face.

Excellent!

April 23, 2009 - 08:07 ET by Jinx McHue

Good on him for discovering just how many lies the left is drowning in.  Too bad the bigots on Huff-n-Puff are too intolerant, close-minded and bigoted to consider anything beyond their liberal brainwashing.

The "frustrated state of

April 23, 2009 - 08:21 ET by Edhenry

The "frustrated state of the wicked"

Of all the tomes written debating tolerance, none can compare to those 5 words in explaining the root cause of liberal weak, co-dependent, group think, intolerant, shallow and sad behavior.

To Kevin Roose

April 23, 2009 - 09:02 ET by Stumpie

Congratulations and good research!

It is unfortunate that you will probably become exposed to more 'tolerence' from the left before it is over.
You're always welcome here, with us 'abnormal' 'brainwashed' Christian Conservatives.

Peace

Anyone

April 23, 2009 - 09:21 ET by Tom Paine

Anyone care to predict if we will see this young man profiled on Oprah, The View, 60 Minutes, Nightline, 20/20 (other than by John Stossel) or the network morning shows?  Now imagine if a conservative student had undergone a high profile conversion to liberalism?

 "I hope he's been

April 23, 2009 - 09:42 ET by QueenMum

 "I hope he's been debriefed and re-socialized into the real world. Never visit the darkside."

Wait a minute. Aren't these the same people who want to dialogue with the likes of Chavez and Amadinnerjacket? I guess in the eyes of the left, the average American is more dangerous.

And then there's the whole idea that if one seeks to actually seek the truth, one must be intellectually weak.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of the tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Ayn Rand

Kevin Roose's "mistake"

April 23, 2009 - 12:58 ET by moderncommentaries83

As others have pointed out, the left already has a set agenda and ideology when it comes to conservatives...and especially conservative Christians.

Mr. Roose's "mistake" came not in his attitude shift after a semester at Libertyville, his "mistake" was even attempting this in the first place.

Liberals, the self-proclaimed champions of tolerance and diversity, do not like to have their very fixed, vapid, self-centered worldview challenged.  They are right, everyone else is wrong, and don't you dare cite facts proving otherwise.

The mere fact that Mr. Roose was willing to go there and give them a fair shot flew in the face of what they deem as "enlightened" and "intelligent" discussion (which usually means: they hurl pejoratives at conservatives, conservatives shut up and take it).

And, naturally, they are very disappointed that the outcome has been less-than-supportive of their stereotype of Christians.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

This all reminds me of

April 23, 2009 - 15:15 ET by HockeyKid

This all reminds me of taking liberal friends out to the range for some target shooting, and watching them find out how much fun it is.  Really puts a kink in their preconceptions. 

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

I love the comments!  A

April 23, 2009 - 15:56 ET by mattm

I love the comments!  A liberal actually tries to live up to the name and act in an open minded way, and discovers that his preconceived notions and prejudices were extremely off base, and he reports this fact only to find that his lefty pals (the ones who didn't open their minds) now consider him to be brainwashed! How poetic!

This is exactly why libs will not debate unless they can set the rules or stack the audience, etc.  It is also why they choose to demonize rather than actually prove their points through the use of fact and reason.

What I find amazing is that such idiots are able to amass so much political power.  I guess demagoguery and propaganda are pretty potent forces.

This is too much!

April 23, 2009 - 21:14 ET by HeavyChevy

"I'm a little worried about Kevin's soul now that he's been programmed.
He seems strong and intelligent though, so there's still hope for him.
I'll be praying for his salvation from the radical right."

 

Am I the only one that sees this comment funny! "Soul" "Praying" "Radical right?" Praying to save someone from Christians? That's like Praying to God to save someone from going to Church.

 

"Oh lord please save this young man from your salvation. Oh by the way I still don't believe in you...Amen. You can't make this stuff up!

Extremely misleading title

April 24, 2009 - 17:33 ET by JasonC

Extremely misleading title and story.  You imply that Roose himself 'discovered' intolerance from the left.  Yet nothing about what you've quoted him as saying suggests that.  All his own statements suggest is that his preconceptions turned out to be exaggerated. 

The only intolerance from the left that you are able to produce is an anonymous poster from HuffPo going off about Falwell and indoctrination.  Seriously, that's just weak.  I could have a field day hand-selecting posts from essentially anonymous NBers in order to make the right look intolerant.  And on any topic, really.  Except, of course, that producing said anonymous posts in a serious news story and trying to pass them off as indicative of larger trends would be beyond pathetic and unprofessional.

As for the Falwell interview, I don't see your point.  So he found out Falwell enjoyed Snapple and violent TV shows.  Big whoop, that changes nothing about his politics and his unabashed intolerance for those whom he built a career out of disapproving of.  If it turned out that Ted Rall likes Dr. Pepper and long walks on the beach, would that suddenly make you more sympathetic to him?

While I agree that it is commendable that Roose had the intellectual maturity to write about what he really experience at Liberty rather than toeing the line of his initial preconceived project, I believe you have severely misrepresented him here.

Typical

April 24, 2009 - 17:37 ET by bigtimer

Of course you do Jason...of course you do.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Well BT, it would be

April 24, 2009 - 17:52 ET by JasonC

Well BT, it would be awfully easy to prove me wrong...show me where the undercover Liberty student discusses discovering intolerance from the left; not where a NBer infers that he discovered it simply because Liberty was different from what he expected, or worse, an anonymous message board comment.

Come on Jason...you think

April 24, 2009 - 17:57 ET by bigtimer

Come on Jason...you think for one second I was going to play with you and your constant bantering, criticism of NBs and the blog posts.

I am just letting you know that it is so typical and to be expected from you...nothing more...others may want to play around with you...I don't...it gets so old.

 Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

So you posted...why

April 24, 2009 - 18:03 ET by JasonC

So you posted...why exactly?  To point out that my critique, which is so well-reasoned and straightforward that you don't provide a single counter-argument (but only because you don't want to 'play around', of course), is along the lines of what I usually post?

I appreciate that.

'Misplaced Arrogance'

April 26, 2009 - 19:44 ET by bigtimer

'Misplaced Arrogance' should be you User name Jason.

 Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Oh, good one.  I was at

April 26, 2009 - 21:18 ET by JasonC

Oh, good one.  I was at least being halfway sarcastic.  But hey, you've now posted three times only to tell me that my post is typical, without offering one shred of counter-argument or criticism (it's okay, nor has M. Bratton).  So I just naturally assumed my logic was airtight.

So I just naturally assumed

April 26, 2009 - 21:33 ET by bigtimer

So I just naturally assumed my logic was airtight.

What part of 'Misplace Arrogance' didn't you understand Jason?

I stated from the beginning I wasn't going to waste my time bantering with you...been there, done that.

 Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

So why post in the first

April 27, 2009 - 07:55 ET by JasonC

So why post in the first place.  That's all I'm saying.

Nice twisting Jason

April 27, 2009 - 19:43 ET by cocodrie

Rev. Falwell blamed the ills of this world on the sins of mankind.

If you take the time and effort to read the bible you will find out what sin is. You should not be so critical of things you do not understand. Rev Falwell preached against all sin but the old media chose to select some to inflame the radicals.

Why post about something you do not understand?

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

See below.  And the

April 27, 2009 - 22:00 ET by JasonC

See below.  And the comment about what Falwell's career was or was not built upon was just a snarky aside.  The main idea of my post has yet to be addressed.

Nice bash, Jason.

April 26, 2009 - 19:25 ET by Mike Bratton

Rev. Falwell's career, actually, was built on what, and Who, he was for; he gained a certain degree of notoriety for resisting moral social decay, and for that, he garners attention such as yours even posthumously.

What do you actually know about Jerry Falwell?  And no, you don't get to cut-and-paste, link, or tell us anything anyone else knows about the man.  What makes you feel you have license to attack someone such as Rev. Falwell?

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

Rev. Falwell's career,

April 26, 2009 - 21:14 ET by JasonC

Rev. Falwell's career, actually, was built on what, and Who, he was for

I wouldn't disagree with that, and I am aware that he did some wonderful and truly Christian things.

However,
so have hundreds of other preachers who have not become rich and famous
for their good works.  Falwell became what he is because he revelled in
controversy - via his incredibly judgmental and hypocritical
characterizations of those who led lifestyles with which he disagreed -
and thus became a strange sort of celebrity.  You've told me I can't
cut and paste, and I'm not in the mood to sit here and type out
Falwell's most obnoxious and intolerant statements.  You know what they
are as well as I do.  

What gives me license to "attack" someone like Jerry Falwell?  He was a controversial public figure.  Oh, and the 1st Amendment.  Same thing that allows other NBers to call Obama a socialist, Helen Thomas a pig, etc., etc.

I have no doubt that Falwell believed the things that he said.  Where you see resistance of 'moral social decay' I see a person who thought it made him more holy to point out what he perceives as moral failure in others.  He clearly skipped Sunday School when John 8:7 was being discussed.  And that's fine.  He had the right to say those things.  You have the right to believe they are indicative of his moral fiber.  And I have the right to believe they were his stepping stone to fame and power.

The whole point here is that what we know about him is irrelevant.  Learning what kind of soft drinks he liked might make him seem more like a regular guy to you.  But there's no remotely rational reason to claim that that mitigates what one thinks of him as the figure that he was.

 

I see you confuse rights and responsibilities, Jason.

April 27, 2009 - 13:19 ET by Mike Bratton

Even the First Amendment is construed to prohibit shouting "Fire!" in a theater.  

And, of course to prohibit shouting "Theater!" in a crowded fire station.  But, I digress...

At the end of the day, you don't have an internal reference as to why Jerry Falwell deserves your hate, except that he doesn't act like you.  Thanks, and I appreciate your honesty.  When your response is loaded with "I see," "I have the right to believe," and the like, you set yourself up as Rev. Falwell's arbiter, as his judge.  And that is both immoral and hypocritical.

If you would like others to be more measured in their discourse, you might start by being an example to them--by at least approaching the bar you set so high.  

While it is nonsense to equate unfortunate souls such as Helen Thomas to swine, you are confused to believe that it is out of bounds to refer to Barack Obama as a Socialist.  His words and actions define him as one, and as someone even more dangerous than that.  But again, I digress...

I'm impressed that you've referenced Scripture, Jason.  For those following along, here is John 8:7, quoted thusly, and like so: "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

You do understand, Jason, that the words of Jesus quoted there are with regard to a woman who was caught in (gasp!) sin, do you not?

And since Scripture does not exist in a vacuum, but rather in a rich world of context, do you also understand that the woman whom those at the Temple refused to stone to death was told by that same Jesus you quote, in verse 11 of that same chapter, to "Go, and sin no more"?

Did you further notice the irony that, at the end of John 8, those around Jesus went from a hypothetical discussion of capital punishment to an actual attempt to stone Jesus Himself to death?  And did you notice that His "capital crime" was to clearly identify Himself as the "ego eimi," as the I AM, as God?

This time, I'm not digressing.  Jerry Falwell, while identifying sin as sin, never called for the deaths of those with whom he disagreed, or the people whose sin lifestyles he addressed.  However, during his life he had to endure bilious criticism and personal attacks that far outstripped any comments he made or actions he undertook to push back against near-pandemic social rot.

Even after his death in May of 2007, Rev. Falwell was attacked in ways that stood in stark contrast to any of his Biblically-based objections to sin lifestyles.  NewsBusters actually catalogued some of them, and my blog references a couple of places where the reports of Rev. Falwell's death were met with celebration.  Here are a few quotes, presented thusly and like so:

Jerry Falwell collapsed in his office this morning, and he’s in the hospital, and he’s “gravely unresponsive.”  At a time like this, people deserve sympathy and good wishes... except for Falwell, who is an evil sonofab****.

The gates of hell swing open and Satan welcomes his beloved son

I'm waiting for Pat Robertson to find a way to blame his rival's death on either feminists or witchcraft. 

The hagiography to cover up a history of hate and bigotry has officially begun.

I wish I believed in Hell, so I could imagine Falwell enduring the eternal torment he wished on so many.

It is a good day. 

And none of this is beside the point, Jason, while all of this is germane to the original article, thanks for asking.  Liberalism, being an emotion-based worldview, is overwhelmingly populated by people who are driven by emotions--including the emotion of hate.  When they have the perceived freedom to put that hate on display, they will, unashamedly.  Christianity is incompatible with such a mindset, with one of the reasons being that it does not indulge hate.

I'm actually glad you went to the Bible in an attempt to justify your verbal assault.  I hope you spend more time there, and understand that the very words of Jesus you quoted require you to understand that the prohibition against "casting the first stone" must lead to an acceptance of a few things:

1) There are sins worthy of punishment in the first place;

2) The actions of Jesus display both God's mercy and His position as sole Judge;

3) We have a responsibility to shun sin, not merely a right to identify it; and

4) The only people recorded in John 8 as actually picking up ammunition with which to stone someone were people who did not want to accept that Jesus is God. 

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

So the thrust of your post

April 27, 2009 - 16:59 ET by JasonC

So the thrust of your post is that Falwell shouldn't be criticized for a career's worth of unequivocally blaming the ills of the world on homosexuality, feminism, Muslims, public education, &c., &c, because that blame came from a sincerely Christian perspective.  Whereas I can't even point out that that sort of seething "blame everyone else" mentality is hardly in keeping with good Christian humility because, for me, that comes from a secular perspective.

I think Falwell had every right to say the things he did.  But anyone else, even if they're not a reverend and don't articulare their beliefs from an explicitly evangelical p.o.v., has every right to:

a) Contest his statements.

b) Point out that his fame and fortune quite obviously derived not from the Christian work that he did - and I'm not trying to take that away from him - but from the notoriety he stirred up by vilifying anyone who didn't properly fit in with his worldview.

(b) is all that I've done here.  I don't see you arguing against it.

"so-called gay folks would just as soon kill you as look at you." -Jerry Falwell, 1977

Yeah, what a guy.  I'd love to get to know him. 

Thanks but no thanks.

So now...where again did this Brown/Liberty student talk about leftist intolerance.  Still waiting on that...

Oh, and would you care to

April 26, 2009 - 21:23 ET by JasonC

Oh, and would you care to address the topic at hand, that the Liberty transfer student has not claimed to have 'discovered' leftist bias, in spite of the article headlines sad attempt to make it appear as though he has?