If Christians Don't Want To Be Called Stupid...

[R. S. Martin]

Then they had better not BE stupid. My prof's been so worried that I think Christians are stupid. (At the time I thought he was one of the brightest brains around.) Now he's gone and proved how stupid he really is.

 

He told me the only thing Darwin had to prove his theory of evolution was one trip around the world. I informed him that Darwin had also read the other evolution theorists before him and done his own experiments. Prof waved all this aside.

 

How crazy can these people be? He got his PhD thirty years ago and has been researching and teaching ever since. If this is what we get from the mighty, what can we expect from lesser lights entranced by a beautiful tree against the backdrop of a mountain stream? (This latter was originally written in response to Ibrahim's post re the beauties of nature prove an intelligent designer named Allah.)

[Piprus]

Then they had better not BE stupid. My prof's been so worried that I think Christians are stupid. (At the time I thought he was one of the brightest brains around.) Now he's gone and proved how stupid he really is.

 

He told me the only thing Darwin had to prove his theory of evolution was one trip around the world. I informed him that Darwin had also read the other evolution theorists before him and done his own experiments. Prof waved all this aside.

 

How crazy can these people be? He got his PhD thirty years ago and has been researching and teaching ever since. If this is what we get from the mighty, what can we expect from lesser lights entranced by a beautiful tree against the backdrop of a mountain stream? (This latter was originally written in response to Ibrahim's post re the beauties of nature prove an intelligent designer named Allah.)

Christians often want themselves perceived by the rest of the world as "taking the high road". For all their efforts, they end up being perceived by many as pompous windbags. In the end, they are just fence-straddlers, trying to reconcile "higher" christian thinking with common sense and reason, and getting blown off their fences onto their asses in the process. Like most christians, at the academic level they want nodding assent, not reasonable questioning.

[DarthOkkata]

Christians often want themselves perceived by the rest of the world as "taking the high road". For all their efforts, they end up being perceived by many as pompous windbags. In the end, they are just fence-straddlers, trying to reconcile "higher" christian thinking with common sense and reason, and getting blown off their fences onto their asses in the process. Like most christians, at the academic level they want nodding assent, not reasonable questioning.

 

Yeah. You're supposed to already know to just shut up and listen. Not bother their relation of information to you with something as stupid as your own questions. You're the one who's supposed to be learning here after all. Duh. After all, they've already finished learning stuff.

[R. S. Martin]

So they want nodding assent. They don't want questions. Fine. This happened at the oral exam. He was supposed to be asking the questions and I was supposed to be providing the answers. Here's the question I thought he was asking: Let's suppose I'm a garden variety person. I don't know anything about science or theology. I've watching television. There's a show in which a scientist talks about the first nanoseconds after the Big Bang. Then a fundamentalist preacher comes on and talks about creation in 4004 BC. How am I supposed to know which one to believe?

 

Boy oh boy! I need far more information than he's giving. For example, I need to know what other background knowledge he's got. But there's no time to get into all that, so I simply say, "I'm a garden variety person. And that's why I think it's not important for me to know how the universe came into being."

 

I think that's a legitimate answer. He does not accept it. I try to find out what his question really is and he talks some more, comparing Darwin and Hodge, and wants me to explain why I favour Darwin over Hodge. He raised the issue I have with authority. I explain that I think we need to look behind authority. I acknowledge that some people say logic depends on authority, too, but I disagree because we all know that if you lay two planks parallel to each other and another one cross-wise across these, you get a bridge; that's just the logical outcome. It's the scientific method. It's the method behind Darwin's theory that I trust. I don't remember the details of my answer but he accepted nothing I said.

 

He did go off on a tangent about intuitive thought. Well yeah, intuitive thought plays an important role in human knowledge. His little tangent evoked mental images in my mind of Darwin's vivid imagery in Origin of the Species, which I had read. Darwin was definitely an intuitive thinker. After hours and hours of thinking I realized that this was not at all what my prof had meant for me to get out of his little tangent. It was his way of saying we should take Hodge's teachings by faith.

 

CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

But at the time I did not know what he was getting at. I asked him again what his question was. And guess what. He said it wasn't a question; he thought I might learn something. I said, "I already knew that." Unfortunately, he didn't get his "nodding assent" from me.

 

Stupid crazy windbag! Unprofessional lowlife. Gave me a passing grade, which is about all that matters. I wasn't alone in the room with him, fortunately. If I confronted him about it now, he would probably downplay it but I have no reason to contact him. Deleted him from my address book. If he doesn't want to appear stupid he shouldn't act stupid. No prof is about his own rules--not in my book.

 

And so far as I understand things, he had broken pretty much every rule in the book.

[Piprus]

Whatever did Darwin have to do with Big Bang, anyway?

Darwin's studies dealt with questions of evolution. Not related to abiogenesis or cosmology.

And this person who was supposed to be evaluating you as a candidate for conferring an academic degree was a Professor?

 

He didn't just break the rule book...he wasn't aware that one existed.

[R. S. Martin]

Whatever did Darwin have to do with Big Bang, anyway?

Darwin's studies dealt with questions of evolution. Not related to abiogenesis or cosmology.

And this person who was supposed to be evaluating you as a candidate for conferring an academic degree was a Professor?

 

He didn't just break the rule book...he wasn't aware that one existed.

 

Thank you Piprus.

[DarthOkkata]

It's a thought wall. He has an invisible mind barrier, that cannot be penetrated by logic or reason.

 

Worst part is, he doesn't know it's there.

 

They always think of themselves as reasonable and moderate people. In reality, they're just being belligerent.

 

Odd that so many worthy minds accept circular reasoning and assumption making on the subject of god and the origin of the universe, but will not allow it in other investigation.

 

It's like they don't notice it.

[R. S. Martin]

Darth, thank you for describing exactly what I've observed in more than one occasion. I've found it so frustrating and confusing. It's the same with the profs as with my own mother and church. People give me the tools for finding truth, and insist it's foolproof, the one and only right way by which to live and die. It makes sense to me and works for mundane/secular life, so I apply it to religion and...BUMP!

 

Suddenly the rules have changed. I'm a heretic and bad person and need to be reformed and lectured and taught the real truth or whatever this particular person decides to call it.

 

I wasn't sure exactly what the word "belligerent" meant so I looked it up on answers.com. I thought it might mean cranky, but apparently it's more involved or active than that. Here's the definition:

 

adj.

1. Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.
   
2. Of, pertaining to, or engaged in warfare.
   

n.One that is hostile or aggressive, especially one that is engaged in war.

**************************

 

That really fits the picture. All I aimed at doing was writing a thesis to meet the criteria and complete degree requirements. I'd run out of energy long ago and was seriously struggling to get it done. Fighting anyone was out of the question. I was sticking it out for one reason only: I had put my hand to the plow--I had invested far too much--to look back and give up before achieving my goal so long as I had breath in my body. Giving up was not an option. I had to get this degree or die in the attempt. That was about the level of the stakes.

 

Writing a thesis on the graduate level requires an argument of some sort and this argument must be supported in some way. The only argument I had energy to write and support was my deconversion and the reason for it. This had to tie in with degree requirements and program content. End product: A paper that challenged any Christian's beliefs--conservative or liberal, but he had agreed that it would be okay in the context that it was my personal opinion and experience. He wrote a disclaimer for me to use as a prologue. I used it.

 

Thus, exhausted and at the end of my rope, I hand in the best paper I am able before the deadline. It was by no means the best paper I'd ever written but it was the best I could do. And he takes it as a battle cry.

 

I think billigerent fits. The "cry for battle" is inside his own head. He's been hearing it ever since I announced my deconversion.

 

Not that he's likely to accept this but I'm not asking his opinion.

[par4dcourse]

When a child of say 4 or 5 announces that he has an invisible friend that he talks to and who helps him through tough times, you smile and nod and pretend to acknowledge him/her. When a fully grown, supposedly sane adult does it, rational people worry. When the leaders of our country, including the president, does it, sane people get very worried. I fear we're headed toward an episode of "My god is better than your god" with a nuclear theme. The ultimate reality show.

[Antlerman]

So they want nodding assent. They don't want questions. Fine. This happened at the oral exam. He was supposed to be asking the questions and I was supposed to be providing the answers. Here's the question I thought he was asking: Let's suppose I'm a garden variety person. I don't know anything about science or theology. I've watching television. There's a show in which a scientist talks about the first nanoseconds after the Big Bang. Then a fundamentalist preacher comes on and talks about creation in 4004 BC. How am I supposed to know which one to believe?

 

Boy oh boy! I need far more information than he's giving. For example, I need to know what other background knowledge he's got. But there's no time to get into all that, so I simply say, "I'm a garden variety person. And that's why I think it's not important for me to know how the universe came into being."

I of course was not there to read and interpret the subtleties of body language, etc in an attempt to gage his motives for questioning, so am offering no conclusion. But to play Devil's Advocate here in the interest of discussion:

 

I'm supposing myself a professor and testing a student by asking this question as he states it above. I would ask this question to see if the student has evaluated how people resolve conflicting information; where you have information being presented by a scientist on one hand talking about events from 14.5 billion years ago, and information being presented by a fundamentalist minister that contradicts that, stating the earth is a mere 6000 years old.

 

What does your average person do when they hear this? How do they decide what to believe and adopt - without going through in-depth study? It may matter to them as a person, because they would like to know who they should trust? And more importantly, what drives and influences that process of conflict resolution, things such as 'intuitive thought', or 'gut feeling', comfort levels, etc.?

 

I would not be as interested in hearing an answer as to how they 'should' do it, but to see if the student has an understanding of the sort of things that lead people to a religious belief by demonstrating they are taking into account the sorts of things that play a part in how people choose who to trust; what sort of human factors are at work in people in the face of contradictory information, particularly in this day in age of apparent conflict between science and religion. I think it must be a significant factor considering how many people still feel they have the option to reject the findings of science in favor of a religious explanation. It's an important question to look at in the light of this.

 

Now, this may not have been his motives in asking this, but it would be mine. Any thoughts as to what goes into people (your person of average education) that influences who they choose to listen to? I'd be interested in your perspectives.

[R. S. Martin]

When a child of say 4 or 5 announces that he has an invisible friend that he talks to and who helps him through tough times, you smile and nod and pretend to acknowledge him/her. When a fully grown, supposedly sane adult does it, rational people worry. When the leaders of our country, including the president, does it, sane people get very worried. I fear we're headed toward an episode of "My god is better than your god" with a nuclear theme. The ultimate reality show.

 

That's when I take consolation in the fact that bullies tend to be cowards. It would mean his own undoing. I think most of even the most rabid fundies know "intuitively" that if they nuke the planet it would take them right along and they don't really want to die. Not yet. No matter what they say, they want Jesus to wait at least one more year.

 

I do get your point that so long as it's just a religious prof being a bit crazy not to worry. However, it does get a bit traumatic when the one person who has stood by you through thick and thin when family deserted and turned on you, the person who has guided and taught you new and meaningful insights--when this person suddenly turns and attacks you for being who he trained you to be it really hurts.

 

If he was going to do it, I am glad he waited till right at the end. This way I don't have to go back. I can write him and his off and get on with my life. I know now that gramps has been right all along--NEVER trust christians no matter how nice they may seem. They cannot tolerate when you disagree with their pet god. Education, apparently, does exactly NOTHING!

 

Christians are okay as people so long as they relate as people.

[DarthOkkata]

I just wanted Jesus to wait until George Lucas finished Star Wars. Armageddon after that would be fine.

 

We all know how that turned out. >_<

 

I find myself almost wishing the end of the world came sooner.

[R. S. Martin]

Now that others have helped me deal with some of the emotional issues perhaps I can deal with this post.

 

So they want nodding assent. They don't want questions. Fine. This happened at the oral exam. He was supposed to be asking the questions and I was supposed to be providing the answers. Here's the question I thought he was asking: Let's suppose I'm a garden variety person. I don't know anything about science or theology. I've watching television. There's a show in which a scientist talks about the first nanoseconds after the Big Bang. Then a fundamentalist preacher comes on and talks about creation in 4004 BC. How am I supposed to know which one to believe?

 

Boy oh boy! I need far more information than he's giving. For example, I need to know what other background knowledge he's got. But there's no time to get into all that, so I simply say, "I'm a garden variety person. And that's why I think it's not important for me to know how the universe came into being."

I of course was not there to read and interpret the subtleties of body language, etc in an attempt to gage his motives for questioning, so am offering no conclusion. But to play Devil's Advocate here in the interest of discussion:

 

This post tells about body language. The rest of the thread tells about the traumatic experience and nightmares. I did not expect one of our own mods to act as a defender of absent Christians and your post served only to add to the trauma. I had been prepared to take on christians but not our own--esp. not with the power imbalance of a mod. I had been of the impression that exChristian.net is supposed to be a safe place for exChristians to expresss themselves. Apparently your forums are not and I may have to avoid them in the future. This is too bad because the Lions Den has been very therapeutic for me to deal with my unresolved rage before you were in charge of it. However, I cannot deal with a mod who forever puts a lid on its expression and I will have to seek another outlet.

 

FYI, the answer I posted here, which you quoted, is the only answer possible for that question. I considered everything you suggested--and much, much more, and for me there is no other answer.

 

You are neither my prof nor my judge and I am not accountable to you for academic questions. I ask that you back off and leave me alone.

[R. S. Martin]

So they want nodding assent. They don't want questions. Fine. This happened at the oral exam. He was supposed to be asking the questions and I was supposed to be providing the answers. Here's the question I thought he was asking: Let's suppose I'm a garden variety person. I don't know anything about science or theology. I've watching television. There's a show in which a scientist talks about the first nanoseconds after the Big Bang. Then a fundamentalist preacher comes on and talks about creation in 4004 BC. How am I supposed to know which one to believe?

 

Boy oh boy! I need far more information than he's giving. For example, I need to know what other background knowledge he's got. But there's no time to get into all that, so I simply say, "I'm a garden variety person. And that's why I think it's not important for me to know how the universe came into being."

I of course was not there to read and interpret the subtleties of body language, etc in an attempt to gage his motives for questioning, so am offering no conclusion. But to play Devil's Advocate here in the interest of discussion:

 

 

I have now had some time to recuperate. If you really want discussion perhaps I can handle it now. No promises but I'll give it a try.

 

I'm supposing myself a professor and testing a student by asking this question as he states it above. I would ask this question to see if the student has evaluated how people resolve conflicting information; where you have information being presented by a scientist on one hand talking about events from 14.5 billion years ago, and information being presented by a fundamentalist minister that contradicts that, stating the earth is a mere 6000 years old.

 

What does your average person do when they hear this? How do they decide what to believe and adopt - without going through in-depth study? It may matter to them as a person, because they would like to know who they should trust? And more importantly, what drives and influences that process of conflict resolution, things such as 'intuitive thought', or 'gut feeling', comfort levels, etc.?

 

I would not be as interested in hearing an answer as to how they 'should' do it, but to see if the student has an understanding of the sort of things that lead people to a religious belief by demonstrating they are taking into account the sorts of things that play a part in how people choose who to trust; what sort of human factors are at work in people in the face of contradictory information, particularly in this day in age of apparent conflict between science and religion. I think it must be a significant factor considering how many people still feel they have the option to reject the findings of science in favor of a religious explanation. It's an important question to look at in the light of this.

 

Now, this may not have been his motives in asking this, but it would be mine. Any thoughts as to what goes into people (your person of average education) that influences who they choose to listen to? I'd be interested in your perspectives.

 

1. My original answer stands: I need far more information than he's giving. For example, I need to know what other background knowledge he's got.

 

I will elaborate. A) Exactly what constitutes an "average education"? And what is the content of that "average education"? That, actually, is irrelevent because there is no time to educate me in it. B ) Remember the impact of culture. Remember also that I have no tv, movies, high school, popular literature, or science (chemistry, biology, etc.). Thus, I cannot begin to know how a person with all of this background knowlege would think or reason. C) The background knowledge that I as a cultural Old Order Mennonite bring to the situation might not apply to the "average person." D) Thus, when he was telling me the question, two things stood out to me right off the bat and I think they should stand out to you, too, because of your keen awareness of my background. These were the word "television" and the big wrist-watch he was wearing. Those two items are blatant symbols of our two different cultural backgrounds, along with all the implications.

 

Antlerman, I think in my earlier posts I addressed all the issues you raised:

 

2. What I said about Darwin in Post 1 stands: He told me the only thing Darwin had to prove his theory of evolution was one trip around the world. I informed him that Darwin had also read the other evolution theorists before him and done his own experiments. Prof waved all this aside.

 

3. What I said about logic and the scientific method, and why I trust it in Post 4 stands. He dismissed it, too.

 

Like I asked my prof, What is your question?

 

You may have missed it, but if he had not waved aside all the facts and hard data about Darwin, the argument could be made that he was simply testing me. However, the fact that he discounted it out of hand tells me he was fighting for real. For some reason he had to get rid of anything that stood between him and the argument that Christian faith made sense.

 

About intuitive knowledge. This wasn't the first time that he resorted to fancy language to substitute Christian terminology. "Intuitive knowledge" was his atheist term for faith or I miss my guess.

[Alice]

About intuitive knowledge. This wasn't the first time that he resorted to fancy language to substitute Christian terminology. "Intuitive knowledge" was his atheist term for faith or I miss my guess.

 

Ruby,

 

just wanted to share the thought I had when I first read that your professor had spoken of intuitive knowledge - I assumed it was a myers-brigg related comment.

[Grandpa Harley]

To play Devil's Advocate is to try and spin the counter view without necessarily thinking the view is vaild or even possible. To place Antlerman's comment in perspective, he was putting forward a contra view, without necessarily saying you were 'wrong' or that the professor was 'right'. Hell, I do it all the time... it's part of my rakish charm

 

As to Christians being 'stupid'... to me there is what I call 'functional stupidity'... basically a person who is, to all intents and purposes, a reasonable and sane individual, can hold views which would not be out of place in the 'Short Bus' beloved of Skip's narratives.

 

As a comment on the Professor in question... some people are living proof that their qualification is less a measure of intelligence and simply a test of memory and English

[Emme]

Is this a real professor? he sounds really unprofessional letting his private beleifs steer an examination! He's supposed to at least try and be objective.

It sounds to me like he is a christian spilling his version of reality into his teaching. yuk. I know you have studied theology (right?), but do you have to be a christian to do that in the US? Are your fellow classmates christian?

[Ouroboros]

About intuitive knowledge. This wasn't the first time that he resorted to fancy language to substitute Christian terminology. "Intuitive knowledge" was his atheist term for faith or I miss my guess.

 

Ruby,

 

just wanted to share the thought I had when I first read that your professor had spoken of intuitive knowledge - I assumed it was a myers-brigg related comment.

I think it could also be a reference to the assumption that belief is an innate faculty of the human "soul". A very popular Christian concept. We all should believe in God, because God magically planted the need and desire to love, worship and believe in him/her/it). Yack, yack, yack...

[Grandpa Harley]

What Hans said...

[R. S. Martin]

About intuitive knowledge. This wasn't the first time that he resorted to fancy language to substitute Christian terminology. "Intuitive knowledge" was his atheist term for faith or I miss my guess.

 

Ruby,

 

just wanted to share the thought I had when I first read that your professor had spoken of intuitive knowledge - I assumed it was a myers-brigg related comment.

I think it could also be a reference to the assumption that belief is an innate faculty of the human "soul". A very popular Christian concept. We all should believe in God, because God magically planted the need and desire to love, worship and believe in him/her/it). Yack, yack, yack...

 

Hans, I have an "intuitive knowing" that this is what he meant. Alice, at some point I raised the myers-briggs topic with him and he was very clear with me that he refuses to get involved with understanding MB on any level. His father was deeply into that and he refuses. The man is a rebel of sorts and I think that is why he and I got along so well so long as I professed some sort of heretical Christianity.

 

I know he also played with atheism at some point in his life before he settled for his present confession. Even today he will say, "I believe most of the creed most days." He's a rebel and heretic and proud of it.

 

I took courses with him two years before my deconversion and he was a really good person for me to work with during these last stages of my intense seeking. However, he lost some of this playful sponteneity with me when I deconverted. Time and again he would charge me with saying Christians were stupid. And he would make those charges when the thought was furthest from my mind--when I was seeking his advice and approval of my work, when I was seeking to understand the theologian I was studying. I don't understand this change, esp. the charges.

[R. S. Martin]

Is this a real professor? he sounds really unprofessional letting his private beleifs steer an examination! He's supposed to at least try and be objective.

It sounds to me like he is a christian spilling his version of reality into his teaching. yuk. I know you have studied theology (right?), but do you have to be a christian to do that in the US? Are your fellow classmates christian?

 

He holds a senior position at a school of graduate studies. He has been teaching at that school for two or three decades. For all intents and purposes he is a real professor. I suppose, like so many Christians, he isn't perfect, just forgiven.

 

I'm in Canada. According to this school's policy, students do not have to be Christian to take this program. That is one of the things I have against him. He approved me doing the paper this way and even wrote a disclaimer or prologue for me so I could say my personal stuff with impunity. My classmates were all Christians. Some of them were training for the ministry.

[R. S. Martin]

To play Devil's Advocate is to try and spin the counter view without necessarily thinking the view is vaild or even possible. To place Antlerman's comment in perspective, he was putting forward a contra view,

 

I would have liked AM to have demonstrated having read my earlier posts and seen the arguments I had presented to my prof--all of which the prof had dismissed. I would have liked AM to tell me why these arguments weren't good enough if he wanted to play devil's advocate. He did none of this. I thereby got the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he was taking the prof's side in disliking my position of questioning authority. This impression was strengthened because of AM's position on this forum as moderator.

[Grandpa Harley]

I suppose, like so many Christians, he isn't perfect, just forgiven.

 

If he's been there ~25 year he has something better than 'forgiveness'... he has TENURE!

[Antlerman]

To play Devil's Advocate is to try and spin the counter view without necessarily thinking the view is vaild or even possible. To place Antlerman's comment in perspective, he was putting forward a contra view,

 

I would have liked AM to have demonstrated having read my earlier posts and seen the arguments I had presented to my prof--all of which the prof had dismissed. I would have liked AM to tell me why these arguments weren't good enough if he wanted to play devil's advocate. He did none of this. I thereby got the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he was taking the prof's side in disliking my position of questioning authority. This impression was strengthened because of AM's position on this forum as moderator.

 

Speaking as only as a member:

 

Oh for god's sake you are so paranoid. I only saw this today, and was too busy to form any sort of response that didn't tear your head off.... speaking completely as only a member and not in the roll of a mod (if your mind can comprehend that), you are so fucking paranoid it's so detracting from everything you say that sounds half-ways respectable. In fact it pretty much makes it all null and void. You have earned by word and action my utter disrespect. Grow the hell up. That you can't act like an adult and persist in this drivel of your brain, makes you almost at the bottom of my respect scale.

 

What gramps said. Read it, digest it, accept it if you possibly can. I frankly am finding it entirely unpalatable to my intelligence to attempt to discourse with you. You complain like an child of 8.

 

Speaking as a mod:

 

If you persist in public accusation of me abusing my powers of mod without any support from the staff here, you may well find yourself in disfavor. You have provoked a respected member here (in this case me) by your baseless accusations, and be warned it will not be tolerated as would be the case with any such baseless behaviors towards any member. You have been shown a hand of respect, yet you've complained like a bitter child despite it. Consider yourself warned.

 

Take it to management or shut the hell up. I'm through with this juvenile behavior of yours on this site.

[R. S. Martin]

I suppose, like so many Christians, he isn't perfect, just forgiven.

 

If he's been there ~25 year he has something better than 'forgiveness'... he has TENURE!

 

For sure. He's untouchable.

 

Can't burn any bridges in real life in case I ever need letters of recommendation from him.

 

Next best thing I can do is rant and rave here and figure out what is at the root of it.

 

I've been reading the skeptic Edmund D. Cohen's Mind of the Bible Reader, 1986, about mind control.

 

He argues that the Bible is a superb tool of mind control. I understand that he thinks a mind-controller begins with something the subject identfies with in order to gain the subject's confidence; then takes advantage of the subject through that confidence.

 

Here's an example (my own thinking; not his): We can all identify with Eve's wanting to taste the apple she was told not to touch. What is unrealistic is the ending of the story where life-long consequences come to bear on the picking of the forbidden fruit.

 

I'm thinking: Con-artist par excellence!