Your academic writing samples are skewed towards the humanities. That, I suppose, could be a compliment to the humanities, but… really, bad writing is probable whereever there is a lot of writing. You should try the social sciences, business schools (which is an exception to the Pareto rule I\’ve referred to above — it is almost one hundred percent bad writing) and the natural sciences. I noticed one of your correspondents wrote that the latter can\’t accomodate bad writing because \”…in the end, good work that\’s buried gets uncovered because nature demands it.\” This isn\’t just an instance of the pathetic fallacy gone mad, but pretty much a standard way of writing about science, at least among the Sokal/Paul Gross school.
Perhaps I should drops some hunks of prose from economics journals here. But I will spare us all.
I am an atheist myself but I think it is not correct to compare religion with science.
The comparison one should make in my opinion is the one between religions and other political movements.
If you compare religion with science you go along with the religious people with the biggest blinkers; fundamentalists.
Compare them with other political movements and you\’ll recognize that part of these movements are highly undemocratic and populist. But this goes for a lot of political movements:
\”..for many (I think most) members their membership implicitly or even explicitly implies some kind of division between “us” and “them” or even good and bad.\”
You\’re articles are interesting in having a thin veneer of historical fact, but it is sad to see the lack of historical understanding displayed.
Take, for instance, your comments about \”Jacob Sprenger, co-author of the infamous Witch’s Hammer\”. You fail to note that the Malleus Malificorum, the Witches\’ Hammer, was condemned by the Inquisitional courts as dangerous to the Faith, and its authors were punished for having produced it.
In fact, the only courts that used it were the \”enlightened\” secular courts. Indeed, as the Wiccans themselves note, wherever the Catholic Inquisitional courts were strong, witches were NOT burned. Witch-burning only took place in Protestant areas, that is, it took place where the power of the Catholic Church was weak (see http://www.cog.org/witch_hunt.html)
Then you find it an irony that humanists flocked to the papal throne. Why? The very seats of learning, \”the universities\”, were developed by the Catholic Church. Most historians of science agree that, were it not for the Christian world-view, the discovery of the scientific method would not have happened. Precisely because it insisted that history and creation have a discoverable purpose this world-view was uniquely capable of enabling men to discover a method for discerning nature\’s secrets. Every other civilization had discoveries, but none discovered and embraced the scientific method as the Christian west. Science is a peculiarly western innovation precisely because the west is peculiarly Christian.
The rest of your writings run to similar silly statements. You speak of \”the five Gospels\” in the Mel Gibson piece. Please! Why not the six or the seven Gospels? Why leave out the Acts of Pontius Pilate? Which does your Gospel number discard, the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary Magdelene? After all, both express that wonderfully secular humanist concept, \”Unless she become like a man, a woman cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.\”
Modern scholarship (as opposed to the dishwater poured out on undergraduate heads in what passes for university learning today) recognize that the four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, while the Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdelene appear only in the late second and early third centuries, and then only in religious communities whose beliefs would certainly not accord with either Catholic Faith or secular humanism. In your anger at Christianity, you embrace a gospel that Christianity itself rejects, rejecting it precisely because of sentiments like the one in the previous paragraph.
Why hug such a barbed weapon so tightly? Do you think the scars it inflicts on you are outmatched by the scars you will inflict on the Church by embracing it?
Chris, you are a learned man in many respects, and you certainly write well, but you are clearly angry at Christianity, particularly Catholicism, for some un-named injury. For the sake of this injury, you are willing to ignore the facts of history in order to portray things in the worst possible light.
Granted, there\’s enough sordid Christians to make a history of sordid Christianity easy. But such a history must, perforce, ignore inconvenient facts concerning Christian accomplishments in both holiness and humanism.
Your writings cry \”An eye for an eye!\”, yet where does that end? Only with the whole world blind. You are half-blinded by your rage right now. How long will you continue to rage?
Bringing \”Women’s studies, African-American studies, gay and lesbian studies programs, and the moving of non-western and non-“traditional” studies in general out of the anthropology and sociology departments and into the academy on their own terms is\”
NOT, repeat NOT, one of \”the great success story of contemporary higher education\”, but one of the TRAGEDIES!. If I were in college again, and had to waste time on separate courses in such, I would mount a major protest. One learns of the great ideas, honor, morality, etc., from the Great Books of Western Civilitzation. And, from the East. Gutting the Great Books from college because they were \”white, male and western\” has been the height of adolescent thinking. Post modern theory has been discredited and will be joining other bad ideas in the dustbin of history.
Here is a related excerpt from the Christian Science Monitor, 1/27/04, article by David Kirby:
\’Postmodern literary theory is now transforming itself so rapidly that Marxist, feminist, deconstructionist, and psychoanalytic critics (and others) are flocking back to the drawing board in droves as they search for new approaches to writing and teaching.\’
Indeed, some academics say that postmodern theory is on the way out altogether and that the heady ideas that once changed the way literature is taught and read will soon be as extinct as the dodo and the buggy whip.\’
Your academic writing samples are skewed towards the humanities. That, I suppose, could be a compliment to the humanities, but… really, bad writing is probable whereever there is a lot of writing. You should try the social sciences, business schools (which is an exception to the Pareto rule I\’ve referred to above — it is almost one hundred percent bad writing) and the natural sciences. I noticed one of your correspondents wrote that the latter can\’t accomodate bad writing because \”…in the end, good work that\’s buried gets uncovered because nature demands it.\” This isn\’t just an instance of the pathetic fallacy gone mad, but pretty much a standard way of writing about science, at least among the Sokal/Paul Gross school.
Perhaps I should drops some hunks of prose from economics journals here. But I will spare us all.
Thanks.
I am an atheist myself but I think it is not correct to compare religion with science.
The comparison one should make in my opinion is the one between religions and other political movements.
If you compare religion with science you go along with the religious people with the biggest blinkers; fundamentalists.
Compare them with other political movements and you\’ll recognize that part of these movements are highly undemocratic and populist. But this goes for a lot of political movements:
\”..for many (I think most) members their membership implicitly or even explicitly implies some kind of division between “us” and “them” or even good and bad.\”
(see also: http://www.fransgroenendijk.nl/comments.php?id=P240_0_1_0)
Chris,
You\’re articles are interesting in having a thin veneer of historical fact, but it is sad to see the lack of historical understanding displayed.
Take, for instance, your comments about \”Jacob Sprenger, co-author of the infamous Witch’s Hammer\”. You fail to note that the Malleus Malificorum, the Witches\’ Hammer, was condemned by the Inquisitional courts as dangerous to the Faith, and its authors were punished for having produced it.
In fact, the only courts that used it were the \”enlightened\” secular courts. Indeed, as the Wiccans themselves note, wherever the Catholic Inquisitional courts were strong, witches were NOT burned. Witch-burning only took place in Protestant areas, that is, it took place where the power of the Catholic Church was weak (see http://www.cog.org/witch_hunt.html)
Then you find it an irony that humanists flocked to the papal throne. Why? The very seats of learning, \”the universities\”, were developed by the Catholic Church. Most historians of science agree that, were it not for the Christian world-view, the discovery of the scientific method would not have happened. Precisely because it insisted that history and creation have a discoverable purpose this world-view was uniquely capable of enabling men to discover a method for discerning nature\’s secrets. Every other civilization had discoveries, but none discovered and embraced the scientific method as the Christian west. Science is a peculiarly western innovation precisely because the west is peculiarly Christian.
The rest of your writings run to similar silly statements. You speak of \”the five Gospels\” in the Mel Gibson piece. Please! Why not the six or the seven Gospels? Why leave out the Acts of Pontius Pilate? Which does your Gospel number discard, the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary Magdelene? After all, both express that wonderfully secular humanist concept, \”Unless she become like a man, a woman cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.\”
Modern scholarship (as opposed to the dishwater poured out on undergraduate heads in what passes for university learning today) recognize that the four Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, while the Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdelene appear only in the late second and early third centuries, and then only in religious communities whose beliefs would certainly not accord with either Catholic Faith or secular humanism. In your anger at Christianity, you embrace a gospel that Christianity itself rejects, rejecting it precisely because of sentiments like the one in the previous paragraph.
Why hug such a barbed weapon so tightly? Do you think the scars it inflicts on you are outmatched by the scars you will inflict on the Church by embracing it?
Chris, you are a learned man in many respects, and you certainly write well, but you are clearly angry at Christianity, particularly Catholicism, for some un-named injury. For the sake of this injury, you are willing to ignore the facts of history in order to portray things in the worst possible light.
Granted, there\’s enough sordid Christians to make a history of sordid Christianity easy. But such a history must, perforce, ignore inconvenient facts concerning Christian accomplishments in both holiness and humanism.
Your writings cry \”An eye for an eye!\”, yet where does that end? Only with the whole world blind. You are half-blinded by your rage right now. How long will you continue to rage?
Bringing \”Women’s studies, African-American studies, gay and lesbian studies programs, and the moving of non-western and non-“traditional” studies in general out of the anthropology and sociology departments and into the academy on their own terms is\”
NOT, repeat NOT, one of \”the great success story of contemporary higher education\”, but one of the TRAGEDIES!. If I were in college again, and had to waste time on separate courses in such, I would mount a major protest. One learns of the great ideas, honor, morality, etc., from the Great Books of Western Civilitzation. And, from the East. Gutting the Great Books from college because they were \”white, male and western\” has been the height of adolescent thinking. Post modern theory has been discredited and will be joining other bad ideas in the dustbin of history.
Here is a related excerpt from the Christian Science Monitor, 1/27/04, article by David Kirby:
\’Postmodern literary theory is now transforming itself so rapidly that Marxist, feminist, deconstructionist, and psychoanalytic critics (and others) are flocking back to the drawing board in droves as they search for new approaches to writing and teaching.\’
Indeed, some academics say that postmodern theory is on the way out altogether and that the heady ideas that once changed the way literature is taught and read will soon be as extinct as the dodo and the buggy whip.\’
It is about time.