During The Berkeley Mission, we discovered a stark contrast between the atheists who did presentations for our group and the students we encountered on Berkeley's campus. Several of our afternoons were spent conducting "conversational surveys" on campus. We used a series of questions on religious and moral matters as a springboard into conversation. Our group discovered that the vast majority of students surveyed had never given these questions much thought. In fact, we found we had to carefully walk most Berkeley students through the questions and help them think through their reasoning right there on the spot. Not one student surveyed offered our group a serious intellectual challenge.
In contrast, the atheists had thought through their positions, were able to engage questions and respond to objections. They challenged us with their ideas. Now, I'm sure this was largely due to the fact they were involved in atheistic "activism" and were coming to present their religious arguments to a hostile crowd, ideologically speaking. However, it got me thinking on how our ideas about truth impact the level of engagement we have with religious and moral questions.
The atheists were "good ole' modernists" in the sense of holding to a correspondence view of truth. They believe there is a real world "out there" and thus, they want their beliefs to fit that reality. Indeed, there was not a single discussion about the nature of truth with the atheists. No arguments over relativism. Not a single postmodernist in the atheistic crowd. Regarding truth, we were on the same playing field.
However, when we talked with Berkeley students it was clear they had been infected by the relativism so pervasive in culture. Religious truth is relative to individuals or cultures. Moral truth is relative, as well. Thus many students seemed to be characterized by a "whatever believism" -- believe whatever you want because it is all relative anyway. Given this, it is easy to see why those students are not motivated to think carefully through religious and moral matters. At the end of the day it does not really matter what you believe regarding personal and subjective things like religion and morality (think Schaeffer's two-story view of truth).
It was the perfect opportunity to impress upon our students that Christianity is total truth. Christianity makes metaphysical claims (yes, we taught these high schoolers what metaphysics is!), claims about the way the world really is. Therefore, we ought to give our best thinking to religious and moral matters. If we get these things wrong, there are real consequences. In addition, we were able to encourage our students with the fact that they had done more reflection on these matters than 95% of the people they will ever encounter.
I don't think there are many hard core atheists who are truly postmodern in their philosophy. I suspect most of these people are agnostics or a wierd blend of religio-spiritual nonsense.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | March 09, 2006 at 12:39 PM
Philosophy is a learned skill. Most people don’t know how to do violin repair and most people don’t know how to do philosophy. I know this is sometimes hard for evangelicals to understand, but most people (especially females) just aren’t very interested beyond a cursory level.
Idea1: Instead of standing in the commons, stand by the door of the philosophy department.
Idea2: Only ask individuals who look like they are over 25 (not undergrads).
Idea3: Only ask males.
I think you might get what you’re looking for.
Posted by: Tony Montano | March 09, 2006 at 03:04 PM
First of all, it is extremely disheartening to hear someone in the 21st century espouse such blatant sexism. The idea that females are uninterested in philosophy or any level of deeper thinking is completely and simply untrue. I would be hard pressed to believe that Tony has done any of this serious thinking himself, otherwise he would be unable to make such a senseless comment.
And secondly, while aspects of philosophy may require more steadfast learning, no one on earth is walking around without holding philisophical (and for that matter theological) ideas and beliefs. The problem is not that philosophy is "too hard," but rather that the general population has just become lazy in its thinking. There is no longer a desire to think deeply about these issues, because in a society that is laced with relativism, subjectivism, pluralism, and post-modernism there is no need to "think" deeply at all-just be sure to "feel" deeply.
So, Tony, if you'd like to have a conversation about foundationalism, correspondence of truth theory, or non-doxastically grounded beliefs, here is one FEMALE who is ready to challenge you.
Posted by: Kasey Johnson | March 09, 2006 at 04:11 PM
"The idea that females are uninterested in philosophy or any level of deeper thinking is completely and simply untrue."
I think you'll find that the majority of women just aren't interested in these areas, Kasey, it's not sexist to say that any more than to sey most men don't care for movies like "How Stella Got Her Groove Back."
You PERSONALLY might find these areas interesting, and other women do. But the majority simply do not. He might overstate his point (probably for humor) but his point is not exactly without substance.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | March 09, 2006 at 04:31 PM
I am very interested in the survey questions Brett used. Is there any way that these could be posted?
Posted by: Willam Wilcox | March 10, 2006 at 05:03 AM
Chris, how could you possibly know what the majority of women are interested in? Perhaps Melinda Penner could give an answer here. Honestly, just an absolutely ignorant thing to say. Are you the former Harvard president's son?
Your argument, not backed up by any data, works equally well against you: The women you know PERSONALLY might not find these areas interesting, and other women don't as well. But the majority simply do. He might overstate his point (probably for humor), but his point is totally without substance.
Posted by: Robert Casteline | March 10, 2006 at 07:01 AM
"Chris, how could you possibly know what the majority of women are interested in? Perhaps Melinda Penner could give an answer here. Honestly, just an absolutely ignorant thing to say."
The same way you and her can hold your position so strongly you become insulting and patronizing toward anyone who dares disagree. The difference is, I have research and history on my side.
"Are you the former Harvard president's son?"
Please quote to me what he said that you found so offensive. What we need to do is base our positions and ideas on facts and reason, not reaction and cultural bias.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | March 10, 2006 at 07:47 AM
Don't mean to be offensive.
It's not a matter of capacity. Women can do it. Its just a rough average that most (especially the younger ones) just arent as interested in the agressive debating and nit-picking that philosophy entails.
I'm a big fan of Patricia Churchland and Ayn Rand - two bright birds. But unfortunately they are few and far between.
I don't remember the percentage of published female american philosophers in the last 25 years. But I seem to remember it being less than 15%.
Posted by: Tony Montano | March 10, 2006 at 08:10 AM
p.s.
I am very interested in the survey questions too.
POST THEM MELINDA!
Posted by: Tony Montano | March 10, 2006 at 08:15 AM
Chris, I find it fascinating that you say the following: "I don't think there are many hard core atheists who are truly postmodern in their philosophy." Did you read the blog entry at all? To refresh your memory, "The atheists were "good ole' modernists" in the sense of holding to a correspondence view of truth. They believe there is a real world "out there" and thus, they want their beliefs to fit that reality. Indeed, there was not a single discussion about the nature of truth with the atheists. No arguments over relativism. Not a single postmodernist in the atheistic crowd. Regarding truth, we were on the same playing field. " For someone purporting to be concerned with facts and evidence, you obviously missed the fact completely that, in fact, atheists are NOT postmodernists, and that was stated in the entry...Your comment makes no sense.
As for the ongoing comments on women and philosophy, I don't think that merely stating a statistic on how many female published philosophers are out there addresses the original intent of the blog; the interest in this case is on the general population. You can't compare the gender variance at the top of the field to the general population. For instance, if you look at the gender of most violinists in professional symphony orchestras (I am a studied violist), the sections are made up primarily of men. However, beneath the highest professional level, there are in fact MORE accomplished female violinists. If we look only at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, we might suppose that most men play the violin. However, that is flawed reasoning based on poor research.
By the way, to address the comment on "especially the younger [women] ones" being uninterested...I am 23 and in my experience have noticed an extremely strong desire among women my age to engage in serious and thoughtful theological discussion...Maybe you should check your polls again boys...=)
Posted by: Kasey Johnson | March 10, 2006 at 08:48 AM
Um... how did my statement that there probably aren't many postmodernist atheists contradict the post? I was agreeing with his point and extending it beyond the setting of Berkeley that the post was about. Maybe I missed your point.
Kasey, there's nothing offensive about noting that most women aren't terribly interested in philosophy and so forth. It's true, you'll find more women in the university that are interested in this kind of thing, but I think you'd admit that the university is not exactly a typical cross section of femininity world wide.
There have been several studies done that demonstrate women just don't care as much about these topics as men (and ones that show men aren't as interested in other topics as women). There's no reason to take it personally or become defensive because this is noted - it says nothing about you except that you're exceptional.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | March 10, 2006 at 09:44 AM
Nah still most of them arent crazy about it.
If you want another stat, look at the number of female postings in the last 3 months of this blog.
Don't be offended dudette. Men and women are different. Wouldnt it suck chimp if god made us the same!!!
Posted by: Tony Montano | March 10, 2006 at 09:52 AM
Rather than try to beat a dead horse with Chris and Tony, I'd like to point out that the purpose of this blog entry was to comment on the sad-but-true fact that the MAJORITY of the general population (gender non-specific) does not take the time to think through his or her own thoughts and beliefs. It should be our job as "thinking" individuals to encourage all those around us to really sit down and come up with a personal and systematic theology/philosophy of what he or she believes. Only then is there even ground from which to converse.
Posted by: Kasey | March 10, 2006 at 10:42 AM
yup
just because most americans speak english, doesnt mean they can write down the rules of english grammar.
like i said. philosophy is a learned skill.
Posted by: Tony Montano | March 10, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Chris, I would like to see some of the evidence that you say you have.
Posted by: Robert Casteline | March 10, 2006 at 12:39 PM
Well, I'll try to dig up some research, it's not exactly radical except to some groups of people to realize that women and men are different and have different interests. Here's something to help you think about that concept:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051201-114744-9984r.htm
It's very true that most people aren't interested in thinking deeply - men and women. But it's also true that women in general are less interested than men in this area as well. That's not an attack on women, men are less interested than women in other areas that probably would benefit them. The trick is to not let your personal experiences define reality for you. Just because you personally are different or you know some people who are different does not somehow negate the rest of the population.
There are quite a few studies showing women are just not as interested in math and science as men, such as
http://www.anitaborg.org/pressroom/pressreleases_05/summer%20articles/Truth%20about%20math%20science%20and%20women.pdf
The former president of Harvard simply offered this as a possible reason why they have a hard time getting girls to sign up for these courses. Hardly radical, as I've said before. At least, not to most people.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | March 10, 2006 at 01:31 PM