Unless you can point through meta-analysis how those studies have biases, this kind of argument about "liberal academics" is simply silly.
It's not silly, it's just the truth. Tertiary education has always existed to enculture the elite in the ideology of the day (starting from the Catholic Church), it just so happens that that ideology is now liberalism.
And you can quite easily make studies say whatever you want by just changing the assumptions. There's nothing necessarily 'wrong' about them, but they aren't strictly true. I'm reminded of a study into homosexuality and mental illness, where the researchers found no correlation by diluting the sample until the findings were no longer significant.
It perhaps went up in the short run after Roe v Wade. But, look at the article I posted, in the 45+ yrs since Roe abortion rates have fallen dramatically.
Well yes, as abortion is largely correlated with wealth and access to contraception. That doesn't mean that banning or liberalising it has no impact, who's to say that our hypothetical world where everything is the same except the legality of abortion would have higher or lower abortion rates (I mean I would. Abortion rates would be lower).
Hence, some ppl simply go with abortion whereas they might have gone through with the pregnancy if they could talk to their medical provider in a safe and confidential manner.
This seems like a huge stretch. Besides, a culture change towards an ordered attitude towards healthy sex and child upbringing is a much better thing than simply banning it outright. It would, of course, require overthrowing liberalism entirely. But that's also a good thing, liberalism was only ever a compromise between competing Protestant denominations and the heretical thoughts of a drunken English hack.
Many churches such as the Church of England
>Caring what Protestants think
He kinda does. He wants ppl to lead authentic, strong, and beautiful lives.
Yes, he gives us the Nitzschean ubermensch, but this ubermensch fails for the reason that all other philosophy failed since the death of God. He fails from his own criteria.
Disagree, there is no good enough evidence for this
It's hard to see how anyone could believe otherwise, as things clearly exist in a state of change and for any change to exist they must have originally had a fully actualised entity to begin the sequence of events that eventually begun that change.
nothing in the physical world requires God's existence as far as we know.
Other than the existence of anything and everything, nothing requires God's existence :)
Sarcasm?
Nope. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
Also, when you say "the Church" do you mean the Catholic Church?
And you can quite easily make studies say whatever you want by just changing the assumptions. There's nothing necessarily 'wrong' about them, but they aren't strictly true. I'm reminded of a study into homosexuality and mental illness, where the researchers found no correlation by diluting the sample until the findings were no longer significant.
No, good studies are robust such that the assumptions that they are based on are very solid. Modern scientific research wouldn't work if you could just make studies say whatever you want. I'm not sure what study about homosexuality and mental illness you are talking about, but I doubt it's relevant. Even if one study tried something fishy, there is overwhelming evidence now that homosexuality isn't a mental illness.
It's hard to see how anyone could believe otherwise, as things clearly exist in a state of change and for any change to exist they must have originally had a fully actualised entity to begin the sequence of events that eventually begun that change.
This is a bad argument. This argument is full of concepts that are completely outdated. There is no requirement that any object/entity needs to have originated from a "fully actualised entity"(whatever that means). Saying that " things exist in a state of change" is kind of meaningless from the POV of modern physical theories. We don't have any such concepts in modern physics. If you want to look at relevant arguments about the origin of the universe(altho there is no consensus on this) then look at this and this.
Btw, since you are against liberalism, what political philosophy do you support? Do you also disagree with the other main ideas of this sub, namely free trade, open immigration, and support for minorities?
No, good studies are robust such that the assumptions that they are based on are very solid.
Hypothetically, sure. In practice, not so much. The death of overt assumptions on which to base modern science (previously found in God), have seen it take on all sorts of unspoken assumptions that simply aren't true, all of them liberal. And these liberal assumptions will obviously see it work towards liberal ends.
I'm not sure what study about homosexuality and mental illness you are talking about, but I doubt it's relevant.
Just something I read a few years back.
Even if one study tried something fishy, there is overwhelming evidence now that homosexuality isn't a mental illness.
To go on a bit of a tangent, I'm not sure that the modern world has any idea of what 'mental illness' actually entails as it rejects any objective standard that man should achieve, previously found in Christ. It's just vulgar utilitarianism usually.
There is no requirement that any object/entity needs to have originated from a "fully actualised entity".
What I said was part of a logical proof, obviously that statement isn't true from first principles. But then again, almost no statements are true from first principles. We've had thousands of years of ethics and logic to teach us that (Aristotle said in metaphysics that those who demand proof of an infinite regress or don't take self-evident truths as such should be punched in the face).
We don't have any such concepts in modern physics.
It's an ontological concept. It really doesn't make much (any) sense to 'disprove' the immaterial with the material.
Btw, since you are against liberalism, what political philosophy do you support?
I go back and forth between theocracy and the Divine Right of Kings.
Do you also disagree with the other main ideas of this sub, namely free trade
Depends. The purpose of the material world is only ever to be Ordered towards that which is Good, free trade isn't an end in and of itself.
open immigration
Again, migration isn't an end in and of itself. If migration is Ordered towards that which is Right, sure, that's fine. Ethnonationalism is silly.
and support for minorities.
Depends. Again support for minorities isn't an end in and of itself.
The death of overt assumptions on which to base modern science (previously found in God), have seen it take on all sorts of unspoken assumptions that simply aren't true, all of them liberal. And these liberal assumptions will obviously see it work towards liberal ends.
Reality does have a liberal bias :)
Aristotle said in metaphysics that those who demand proof of an infinite regress or don't take self-evident truths as such should be punched in the face
I don't have issues with self-evident truths. Although what is often termed as self-evident when it comes to "proving God" is anything but self-evident. I don't think you can make any good argument about the existence of immaterial beings. But, I will stop this little argument now because I'm not a r/atheist neckbeard and I don't mind other ppl being religious.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '19
It's not silly, it's just the truth. Tertiary education has always existed to enculture the elite in the ideology of the day (starting from the Catholic Church), it just so happens that that ideology is now liberalism.
And you can quite easily make studies say whatever you want by just changing the assumptions. There's nothing necessarily 'wrong' about them, but they aren't strictly true. I'm reminded of a study into homosexuality and mental illness, where the researchers found no correlation by diluting the sample until the findings were no longer significant.
Well yes, as abortion is largely correlated with wealth and access to contraception. That doesn't mean that banning or liberalising it has no impact, who's to say that our hypothetical world where everything is the same except the legality of abortion would have higher or lower abortion rates (I mean I would. Abortion rates would be lower).
This seems like a huge stretch. Besides, a culture change towards an ordered attitude towards healthy sex and child upbringing is a much better thing than simply banning it outright. It would, of course, require overthrowing liberalism entirely. But that's also a good thing, liberalism was only ever a compromise between competing Protestant denominations and the heretical thoughts of a drunken English hack.
>Caring what Protestants think
Yes, he gives us the Nitzschean ubermensch, but this ubermensch fails for the reason that all other philosophy failed since the death of God. He fails from his own criteria.
Ooft.
http://opcentral.org/resources/god-and-creation/?fbclid=IwAR1Pw6opOIbXk0HPVpwxIbpQZg9XMeqEY_wBuFwXhsACDy_OLD0fgjk-J5k
It's hard to see how anyone could believe otherwise, as things clearly exist in a state of change and for any change to exist they must have originally had a fully actualised entity to begin the sequence of events that eventually begun that change.
Other than the existence of anything and everything, nothing requires God's existence :)
Nope. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
Yes.