General Question

allengreen's avatar

Why do conservatives and religious folks have a problem with academic types?

Asked by allengreen (1631points) September 3rd, 2008
Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

30 Answers

tinyfaery's avatar

Because academics use reason to disprove faith. I’d say faith and reason are opposites. Faith is not based on reason; reason cannot be used to disprove faith.

benseven's avatar

I don’t have a problem with academic types.
Not a big fan of conservatives though ;)

bodyhead's avatar

Faith and reason don’t have to be opposites. Usually people only with the power of faith will make that argument.

Maybe the religious are just jealous.

There have been amazing breakthroughs in academics and science that let humans live longer, communicate better and construct great monuments.

The last religious (of US majority) breakthrough was a little over 2000 years ago. They have a lot of catching up to do.

paulc's avatar

There’s academic conservatives out there and they don’t seem to have a problem with themselves. That being said, most academically inclined people I’ve known lean left.

Knotmyday's avatar

Allen, it has come to my attention that you need to be saved.

jballou's avatar

The question you’re asking is inherently dubious because you presupposed a relationship that doesn’t necessarily exist between “academics” and “religious types.” On top of it, your wording is so broad and your labeling so superficial, it barely even makes sense at all.

It seems pretty clear from the last few questions you’ve asked that you have a personal bias against religion, so a real, thoughtful, meaningful discourse isn’t your goal. You’re just looking for confirmation of what you already believe.

bodyhead's avatar

@jballou, it is very broad but there is a large cultural community that believes the devil buried dinosaur bones to deceive us. That scares the ever loving hell out of me. The devout Evangelical creationists despise Darwin and have a low opinion of everyone in his specific academic field (even though you can believe in evolution and God).

I will agree that it’s too broad to give a specific educated response but the intent of the question is to stir the mind and get the mental juices flowing, not simply to get an answer.

rawpixels's avatar

I consider myself a true conservative, unlike George W Bush, and others of his ilk. I’m definitely not a religious guy, but I do believe in limited government, equal opportunity based on the merits, legalization of pot, a woman’s right to choose, the death penalty in certain cases, and so on. I also believe the US should stay out of other people’s business, unless it’s in our national security interest.

Anyway, there are intellectuals on the left and the right. Pat Buchanan is a good example of an intellectual on the right. I don’t agree with him on certain issues, but the man is brilliant.

tinyfaery's avatar

Interesting. I have no faith, and I say you cannot reason faith.

…faith is merely the virtue by which we hold to our reasoned ideas, despite moods to the contrary.

—C.S. Lewis

allengreen's avatar

jballou—just say that I hit a nerve, that you are angry that I may have burst your bubble a bit——don’t worry you will again enshrine yourself with delusions and return to the comfort of the womb, and surround yourself with like minded sheep. Baaaaahhhhhh!
“inherently dubious”—-give me a break! I bet everyone that questions your 11th Century beliefs is inherently dubious too.

benseven's avatar

@Allen, I reckon jB hit the nail on the head, and perhaps the number of religion-related questions you’re asking hides a deeper issue!

bodyhead's avatar

Woah now allen, there’s no need for attacks. You won’t convince any religious person that you are the one who’s right with an attitude like that. Be the better man and combat religion with facts and reason. Whenever you resort to name calling, you’ve already lost.

You can either believe in God or not, but you have to appreciate that a huge portion of our population does believe. That doesn’t make it right but it does make it worth considering.

allengreen's avatar

Body—a huge portion of our population believes in UFO’s too. Jballou took me to the woodshed, and I responded in kind—it is OK for someone who agrees with you to name call and attack me, but it is wrong for me to defend my arguemement? Facts and reason don’t mix in a religious discussion—since these folks believe that women came from a man’s rib, and the world was spoken into existance—what place do facts and reason have?

And Ben: since you’re out of ammo, I must be hiding a deeper issue? Is it a “deeper issue” that compells you to wrap yourself in faire tales (no offense to actual faries) and the doctrine of the 11th Century? Do you dispute gravity? Evolution? Is the earth the center of the universe?

Must be that scientists and scholars “hide a deeper issue” too? The issue of not believing really illogical and outdated unpractical beleifs.

jballou's avatar

@allengreen – relax dude! I’m not even religious, I just like to point out flaws in people’s asinine arguments. Nothing personal. I didn’t mean to take you to the “woodshed.”

; -)

allengreen's avatar

I am here to be taken to the wood shed. It helps me clarify my own assumptions when folks critique my logic, or lack thereof. I enjoyed your input.

benseven's avatar

Yeah, I dispute gravity Allen. I just don’t see any proof of it in day to day life.

I’ll bow out, because I clearly annoy you with my input, being that my faith is s offensive to you.

bodyhead's avatar

A huge portion of the population does not believe in UFOs (if you mean alien spacecraft). Approximately 76% of the us population is Christian. There’s no way I’m buying that 77% (or over) of people here in the states believe in alien spacecraft. People are too practical for that.

If someone attacks you and you don’t attack back but respond with careful intelligence, then you are the better man and everyone who reads this will know you are the better man. They’ll say, “He used reason to win the argument and his statements didn’t fall apart as he resorted to name-calling.”

We’re on the same side here. We just have different tactics.

allengreen's avatar

@ben, and mine to you…...good day!

allengreen's avatar

@body—you are right.

cooksalot's avatar

??? The question makes no sense to me. Academic types? What does that mean. I can’t be a nerd and have faith at the same time??? Question totally loses me.

cwilbur's avatar

A lot of religious types have based their faith and their behavior on what someone told them was in the Bible, or on the way someone else interpreted the Bible for them. As a result, when you read the Bible critically and mindfully, you find that a lot of supposedly-Christian teachings are nowhere to be found in it.

So academic types, who question and analyze and consider and reconsider, are very threatening to the sort of conservative religious type who wants a strict set of rules to live by in a black-and-white, objective world—because the conservative religious type might lose his or her strict set of rules, if the academic looks at it.

cooksalot's avatar

You’d be surprised by what the Bible has in it that time after time is scientifically proven while someone is trying to disprove it.

allengreen's avatar

@cooks—being a scientists and being a Christian are at odds——I sense you were lost before the question, not suprise you are still lost.

cooks give us an example of “what the Bible has in it that time after time is scientifically proven while someone is trying to disprove it.”

cooksalot's avatar

Did you know that DNA can now be traced back on one man? There’s a massive project going on to verify this and they are taking DNA samples from as many people from as many walks of life as possible. So far the results are still the same. We’re all cousins! Also Archaeologically speaking every ancient culture in the world that has a written history tells the story of a great flood. But now I think we are starting to go where fluther is not meant to go. I have my beliefs and I personally feel that science just ends up proving what I believe.
I don’t believe in evolution since it was just a theory. Darwin never stated it was a fact and he died not even believing in his own theory as fact. He still stated it’s just a theory I never meant for it to go this far.

allengreen's avatar

interesting Cooks…

XrayGirl's avatar

I really don’t think we have a problem with the academic types….but certain people think that they can disprove with facts and that simply is not the truth.

The truth is what matters to me, and I am prepared to embrace it, and even accept that my truth may or may not be the REAL truth.

bodyhead's avatar

Gravity is just a theory too. That idiot Newton was a bunch of hogwash. No one can prove gravity or evolution exists. That’s why they’re called theories. I long for the good ol’ days when Adam would fly around the garden of Eden and speak with talking snakes.

XrayGirl's avatar

bodyhead: ”””” Gravity is just a theory too. That idiot Newton was a bunch of hogwash. No one can prove gravity or evolution exists. That’s why they’re called theories. I long for the good ol’ days when Adam would fly around the garden of Eden and speak with talking snakes.

not quite sure where you are coming from. But one day, maybe you and Adam and I can discuss this over a nice cup of cappucino. ;)

bodyhead's avatar

Sorry XrayGirl, that wasn’t directed at you. I have a whole different mess of problems with what you said. It’s the believers job to bring proof to the skeptic, not the other way around. Invisible talking potatoes are real. You can’t disprove them. They talk to me all the time. I sound crazy right? Turns out we both do.

Again, we’re back to my favorite ‘you can’t disprove it’ arguement. I believe in Russell’s teapot. Do you?

My original statement was directed at cooksalot up there who says that evolution is just a theory. I’ll just wait for someone to explain the difference between the flu and the superflu. Maybe they should explain the difference between tuberculosis and the drug resistant strain of tuberculous. Evolution is very real.

Everyone who parrots the same old argument that “evolution is just a theory” isn’t very well versed in science. They scream their ignorance with that argument. (I’m not calling names here. Ignorance is simply lack of knowledge.) Obviously, they have not read the Origin of the Species if they also think that Darwin didn’t believe his own ‘theory’. (Or really anything about Darwin. It would only take a cursory glace at any information about Darwin to find that cooksalot has been monstrously misinformed.)

Relativity is just a theory. Gravity is just a theory. Theories are created to describe observable repeatable facts.

Whether you think that humans were created by God or not is a completely different story.

From the ‘theory’ wiki:
The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, “theory” is not in any way an antonym of “fact”. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

Trust me, it’s not just a theory.

**As an aside, we would also all be cousins if we evolved from the same single celled organism.

bea2345's avatar

I liked Russell’s teapot. It made me laugh (and think). But you know what: humans are a strange breed. People will actually martyr themselves for the sake of an imaginary teapot which they think is real (or a real teapot which some of us think is imaginary – same difference). The administrator, whether a believer or not, has to manage his country, state, city or institution in accordance with accepted guidelines. If faith based organisations prevent the immunisation of children against polio (as happened in Nigeria) the administrator will do whatever he can to get them to do otherwise: because there will be an epidemic (as did happen).

A model for good management takes into account the fact that perceptions govern actions. Persuasion, education, propaganda, the power of the state, etc. make us all fall in line. And even the faithful absorb, and integrate into their thought, the demands of the state. Modern Christianity is very different from its early beginnings.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther