<p>I think if Quantmech ‘loses his faith’ in current scientific theories he would or should be excited and happy by the challenge of understanding reality in a new and better way.</p>
<p>If a Christian loses his faith, it would mean he realised he was wrong, and should also be happy to have his eyes opened to a better understanding.</p>
<p>I have been thinking about kelsmom’s and hunt’s recent posts from my perspectives as a Christian, a scientist, a Democrat, and (at times) a doubter of my own faith. Like kelsmom, it seems to me that there are posters here who believe that choosing a college based on some aspect of religiosity is wrong, whereas it’s perfectly okay to choose a school based on its intellectualism. (Note: I’m not SAYING that it’s wrong to choose schools based on intellectualism, but what makes that inherently more desirable than using other standards for college choice?) </p>
<p>So, if religion is very important to you, it’s somehow wrong to use that as a metric for college choice, but intellectualism is okay.</p>
<p>I also get the impression that some posters assume that “questioning your faith” is a bad thing that every Christian avoids. Have any of you read Flannery O’Connor? She talks frequently about faith and doubt: I think there is no suffering greater than what is caused by the doubts of those who want to believe. I know what torment this is, but I can only see it, in myself anyway, as the process by which faith is deepened. A faith that just accepts is a child’s faith and all right for children, but eventually you have to grow religiously as every other way.</p>
<p>However, its one thing to question your own faith but quite another to have to defend it frequently/constantly. That just sounds exhausting to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I would say that it is a precise reading. In discussions of this sort I think it is important to pay attention to fine distinctions in what people actually SAY.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that is clearly your personal preference. It would appear to me that you place an extreme importance on protestations of “tolerance,” and that you think that it is wrong for anyone to take a dim view of anyone else’s intellectual habits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>wis75 is being gracious in calling herself biased, rather than–for example–simply stating the opinion that “nonthinkers” are intellectually inferior.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see nothing meaningfully “intolerant” about taking a dim view of nonthinkers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Talking about the assumed comparative virtue of “Christians,” as has been done on this thread, does not have a tolerant vibe to me. But you apparently have no problem with that? Curious.</p>
<p>BTW, I see nothing inherently “wrong” with choosing a school for religious religions. It is not a choice that I personally admire, but then people choose schools for reasons I don’t admire all the time. It’s their choice, not mine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Losing one’s faith can be truly exhausting and anxiety provoking, not an event that makes someone happy to have their eyes opened to a better understanding. It is much easier to have all the answers than to only have questions. ymmv</p>
<p>I am really fine with those who don’t feel a need to examine their belief systems as long as their belief systems don’t negatively impact others.</p>
<h1>290 - like</h1>
<p>I also kinda like Singer
:)</p>
<p>Why is intellectualism a valid metric for choosing a college? I’ll have to ponder that one. :)</p>
<p>^Maybe ponder prestige as a valid metric, too? :)</p>
<p>Please. The question on intellectualism was rhetorical AND tongue-in-cheek.</p>
<p>Prestige may be a better comparitor.</p>
<p>There is no better or worse, superior or inferior faith or understanding. Whatever works for individual, whatever he chooses is fine as long as he does not hurt others with that. I disagree with killings dictated by faith, but if there is no criminal activity, what we here are arguing about? I am at loss. I suppose I am the one with inferior understanding, so be it, I am fine with that.</p>
<p>I will note that it’s rarely suggested here that an atheist or agnostic student should make sure to have his beliefs challenged, and that he should be forced to defend them. I just point out that there are some assumptions here about what the “norm” is that I don’t think we should just take for granted.</p>
<p>It seems to me that it is perfectly sensible for a Christian student with strong views–especially if they are out of the secular mainstream–to prefer to go to a college where those views are not embattled all the time. He might not think it would be much fun to spend a lot of time defending his views. I think that is just as sensible as a lot of reasons other kids identify for choosing colleges.</p>
<p>And for those of you who think that students should go to colleges to broaden their outlook–does that mean that you don’t think anybody should go to Reed, unless they are conservatives? Hmmm.</p>
<p>Atheists not forced to defend their lack of beliefs? You have got to be kidding.</p>
<p>@Consolation,</p>
<p>Are we fighting? I hope not. I appreciate your comment about paying attention to “fine distinctions.” Point taken. However, I do think it’s important to be mindful of the way one expresses oneself and to avoid words whose connotative meaning is charged. I thought @wis75’s post was charged. It’s all about tone. A civil tone, I think, is the best one to take when conversing online with strangers. </p>
<p>As to this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think it is wrong. I make all kinds of judgments about people’s intellectual habits. If you want me to express my opinion about the belief that the world was created in six days 6,000 years ago (or whatever the belief is), I will say that there is ample evidence that belief is wrong and in a rather dramatic way. I would also ask someone who thinks gay marriage is damaging to society to provide hard evidence that such is the case (rather than trotting out the tautological argument that “it’s damaging because the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman”). But I don’t see how it promotes the cause of intellectual rigor to rail against theoretical “nonthinkers” and brain-wash victims. It’s name calling, and it doesn’t advance the discussion about any actual ideas these allegedly nonthinking people should be considering or reconsidering.</p>
<p>And as for this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point. Maybe I’m trying too hard to be “nice.” Quite possible. I’m not a nice person, really. I just play one on CC. In all seriousness, you’re right. I do have a problem with that. No one has supplied any substantive evidence that people of faith are “nicer” and “friendlier” than nonbelievers. All that is anecdotal, just as the notion that a Christian would be roundly mocked and jeered at some East Coast liberal schools is anecdotal.</p>
<p>Maybe wis75 could come back and clarify his/her Venn diagram plotting “religious people” and “non-thinkers.” Are religious people just a subset of non-thinkers in the view of wis75, or are there some religious people who fall outside the non-thinking category?</p>
<p>"No one has supplied any substantive evidence that people of faith are “nicer” and “friendlier” than nonbelievers. All that is anecdotal, just as the notion that a Christian would be roundly mocked and jeered at some East Coast liberal schools is anecdotal. "</p>
<p>Of course there is NO evidence that east coast liberal schools mock people. I guess they need to be in wheelchair so they dont get out and beat them up.</p>
<p>[Anthony</a> Maschek, Wounded War Vet, Heckled At Columbia University ROTC Hearing](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Anthony Maschek, Wounded War Vet, Heckled At Columbia University ROTC Hearing | HuffPost College)</p>
<p>Should not come as a surprise from Columbia.</p>
<p>Don’t make me have to utter the name of the Westboro Church, texaspg. :)</p>
<p>“All that is anecdotal, just as the notion that a Christian would be roundly mocked and jeered at some East Coast liberal schools is anecdotal.”</p>
<p>I mentioned to a friend of mine who’s a professor at a college in the Northeast that my kids were thinking about some of the usual New England colleges. He suggested this shortcut to determining just how diverse and open-minded a school is: Ask an admissions officer where the Right-to-Life group meets.</p>
<p>OMG, @texaspg. Of course, this is deplorable. Let me clarify my point. I have not seen substantive evidence that this type of horrible, inexcusable behavior is the norm ANYWHERE. That it happens ever, anywhere is horrifying, and it should be. But now are we going to get into a link war? Do you really want people to go searching for examples of gay youth being bullied, and worse?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All things being equal, and given the number of great choices kids on all ends of the sociopolitical spectrum have, I could see that being a reasonable litmus test to help someone who is anti-abortion decide where he or she wants to expend college-search energies. I did a search for atheist and agnostic groups at schools my daughter was considering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, in the context of academic settings, the principle of “all things being equal” is a non-starter. Despite an equal distribution along political views and principles of its targeted constituency, the world of academia is far from being equal for non-liberals and so-called “believers.” Purporting that our system of higher education presents similar opportunities to people from different religious, political, and SES backgrounds is not only naive but offensive.</p>
<p>In a way, this explains why certain students end up seeking refuge from a lack of openness by opting for an environment that is more accepting, even it comes with the risk of being suspected of extremism or cluelessness.</p>
<p>There is a Harvard right to life student group.</p>