Lies College Students Hear
Click to download a PDF of the pamphlet
Those who have followed Political Cartel for a while know that it was founded in part as a reaction to the incurious and anti-intellectual atmosphere at Harding University. What we had to say was not generally as well received as things like Libertas Exemplar, a now defunct organization dedicated to promoting religious and political conservatism on the campus.
Since it’s Friday, I thought some might enjoy reading this pamphlet floating around Harding’s campus recently. It appears to be associated with Libertas Exemplar and Derek Glover who is now a candidate for city council. Glover said that he doesn’t know anything about it, though, which raises the possibility that this is being printed as a parody. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between good-faith fundamentalism and mock fundamentalism.
The pamphlet is called Lies College Students Hear, and it features 1980s-style graphics as well as logical fallacies. It really made me wonder, among other things, exactly how often these lies are being spread around my alma mater. There are nine total, but here are the first two:
UPDATE: Mystery solved (sort of). The pamphlet comes from the Lake Road Chapel in Kirskville, Missouri. Still no idea if it was plagiarized by a rogue Libertas Exemplar supporter or put out as a mockery of both groups. That is telling in and of itself. The PDF of the pamphlet is on the right side under “tracts.” There are other gems, too, like What Every Woman Needs and Darwin’s Dilemma.
Lie #2 , as per our discussion earlier – A person whom “does not ‘believe’ evolution is a ‘reasonable’ explanation of the origin and makeup of the present universe” is suffering from a delusion . To say that evolution is not, at minimum, a reasonable explanation is to deny logic.
It flows nicely into the term coined by Richard Dawkins “History Deniers” meaning that to take an aggregation of methodically produced scientific evidence, poke superficial holes, and then simply deny is in fact intellectual suicide. It is similar to the logic of denying the Holocaust; and thus deserving of the literary allusion.
I’m glad they put Lie #1 first, because the rest of them depend on whether or not you think it is intellectual suicide to discount all sensory, scientific, and rational evidence and unquestioningly embrace what one particular ancient religious text says.
But if that isn’t intellectual suicide, what is intellectual suicide?
For the record, as a former editor of LE I can tell you this is in no way related to our publication. We were a publication dedicated to an intellectual approach to conservatism in hopes of breaking stereotypes and educated others on our ideals. I have no idea what this pamphlet is.
You’re kidding, right Derekglover? You were the one who posted the quote below on the LE site, right?
“A bit of a housekeeping post here. First, I want to make an official statement on behalf of LE regarding Political Cartel. Recently one of our liberal friends at PC made a post regarding the divinity of Christ. The touchy nature of this post has caused half of their writers to leave and start another blog. While we still recognize PC as an enjoyable blog to read, we at LE disagree and denounce that post and reaffirm our belief that regardless of political differences or opinions, Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Too often the deep thinking that goes into analysing political positions can go to far and stir relativism into one’s faith. What a tragedy when people form faith around their politics instead of the other way around. We have removed our blog link to PC and will instead add What’s Left Now.” http://libertasexemplar.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/new-happenings/
I’d like to hear a chapel talk from one of Harding’s board members on Lie #4.
Also, Derek – I’d do some serious research into this, since your name is stamped on it and you have no idea what it is. I’d be pretty ticked off if I were in that position.
My favorite one as far as logic goes is #3, which can be summarized:
Christianity is not the same as other religions because Jesus said so. All apparent similarities are “superficial.”
I updated the post with the original source of the tract. My second favorite tract from that church includes this Q&A:
“What about all the contradictions in the Bible?”
Proverbs 14:6 A scoffer seeks wisdom, and finds none, but knowledge is easy to him who has understanding.
So if you find that the Bible contains contradictions, then you are unwise? That’s some college level thinking there.
I would like for the list to include such things as: (1o) there’s no way you’ll run that credit card past its limit; (11) your papers will be back next week; (12) of course you’ll be back from the beach for your final exam–that sort of thing.
What I have said previously regarding some of these subject matters has nothing to do with this document. The post you cite involved a specific situation we felt was important to make a statement on because of reaction we were hearing from our readers.
My only concern here is that I don’t want anyone to think I am using Christian Fundamentalism to campaign on….that is simply not who I am.
The main issue is certainly dead – it is clear that neither you nor anyone else associated with LE wrote this pamphlet. I don’t particularly want to go through the whole divine jesus thing again (it gets more tedious every time), but I think there is a point that your response was clearly anti-intellectual. I mean, refusing to even consider a question because of a pre-set dogmatic belief… that is the definition of anti-intellectualism, right?
Listen dude, I don’t know you but that would make you the first if that were true.
I have two questions that I ask sincerely, and not to stir up controversy.
1: Why the anti-Christian bias on this blog? Is there simply no one to argue the other side? I believe it would behoove Political Cartel to feature more viewpoints in their articles, and would make for a more ‘robust debate.’
2: David Manes, and other Harding graduates that write for PC – As you clearly do not subscribe to Christianity (in it’s typical form), why did you attend Harding in the first place? I don’t understand the logic or motivation. There are plenty of other reasonably priced schools that offer reasonably good educations.
“The process of non-thinking called faith. I’m a scientist and I believe there is a profound contradiction between science and religious belief. There is no well-demonstrated reason to believe in God, and I think the idea of a divine creator belittles the elegant reality of the universe.People like to say that faith and science can live together side by side. But I don’t think they can. They’re deeply opposed. Science is a discipline of investigation and constructive doubt, questing with logic, evidence and reason to draw conclusions. Faith, by stark contrast, demands a positive suspension of critical faculties. Science proceeds by setting up hypotheses, ideas or models, and then attempts to disprove them. So a scientist is constantly asking questions, being skeptical. Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.” – Richard Dawkins from “Root of All Evil?”
1 : Speaking for myself, I have a pro-reason bias. I would love to debate, but if your arguments can’t be scrutinized logic or empirical evidence I think we might be running in circles.
Anyway… For anyone interested here is a special treat on Intelligent Design. My friend Vic is an ACLU attorney interviewed for this.
Judgment Day — Intelligent Design on Trial: Nova
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911#
Hey, David, fair questions indeed.
1: We’ve certainly ‘tried’ to balance things out. One of our authors, Chris McNeal, has a more forgiving opinion of Christianity. You’d see that borne out if he wrote more (Hey Chris! Write more, dude!). Also, like David pointed out, we more than welcome criticism of our posts; in fact, we probably crave it.
As for us who are less than forgiving, I think the anti-Christian bias is a reaction to our time spent in an ultra-conservative, ultra-orthodox, southern evangelical environment. I can’t speak for everyone on this issue, but the constant subversion of rational thought and liberal ideas had quite the effect on my perception of religion and my personal beliefs. Harding seemed to de-emphasize the scholarly study of religion, philosophy, and political science. Like it did for David, Harding became something of a giant satire show on wheels. I’m still sort of fighting off it’s less than desirable effects. This, I suppose, leads nicely into the second question.
2. Why I stayed? In a funny way, the answer is more practical than you might have thought. By the time I realized my relative degree of disdain for evangelical Christianity to that of other Christian sects (or perhaps my total disdain for wacky metaphysical speculations and vain attempts at biblical literalism), it would have been counterproductive to transfer schools. I would have been in my undergrad for at least another year, and it would have definitely put a deeper dent in my pocket book. I graduated early. Transferring would have made that impossible.
Nonetheless, like David, I enjoyed my time at Harding. My feelings of marginalization – for unbecoming a Christian – motivated me in entirely different ways (writing on this blog being one of them). I met many sincere and intellectually gifted people at Harding. I am grateful for the time we spent together. Although I like to say if I could do it again, I’d do it differently, but if that happened I’m certain I’d be an entirely different person. And I like who I’ve become.
I should have added you to my list of reasons why I am glad I went to Harding, Steve. Political Cartel is also definitely another reason.
I bet that is a long list you have there. I kid. Sort of.
Fair questions, and for me the answers are related. I was a very different person when I was 17 and made my decision to go to Harding. I got a great scholarship and couldn’t leave a free education, even after I started to change.
It’s not just that I changed, but Harding changed me. Do you ever watch something satirical? Satire takes a position so far to the extreme that it becomes funny and it points out the inherent flaws of the original position. On its face, satire is saying one thing, but it has the effect of turning people away from that. To me, Harding was one giant satire of weird religion and it turned me off of the whole thing.
I don’t regret my time at Harding. I met my fiancee there and it made me who I am today, and I like both of those things a lot.
The other side of any article published here is always welcome to join in (and frequently do) in the comments. Do you think that mocking this silly pamphlet is anti-Christian or that someone should defend it? Go for it, but… good luck.
After reading up quite about on this situation and sy/empathising with you, David, I found this clever little quote that I think fits quite well:
“It wasn’t until quite late that I discovered how easy it is to say ‘I don’t know!’”–W. Somerset Maugham
It seems that questioning things–among certain circles–automatically puts you into a point/counterpoint discussion. Which then almost certainly devolves to ad hominem then we get nowhere.
is there a thread somewhere that discussed ‘What Every Woman Needs’?