tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (07/11/85)
Three comments on this whole issue of the atheistic media: First, why does everyone believe someone who says "A recent poll shows..." without naming the poll? Anyone used to political discussions has to realize that this is one of the most common modern ways to lie. Second, granting for the moment that the press is composed primarily of atheists, what would you expect? Consider for a moment the nature of the journalistic profession, that of skeptical inquiry. A journalist is not supposed to believe ANYTHING unless he can objectively substantiate it. The job of a journalist is to select among possibilities based solely on the evidence. And, resurrection proof-mongers to the contrary, there simply is not any objective evidence of God. A journalistic mindset thus demands atheism. If indeed most journalists are atheists, that shows that they have acquired the mindset they OUGHT to have, that of skepticism. Third, again granting the "poll" findings, they are not statistically valid because they do not take into account educational or economic factors. Journalists tend to be upper middle class, college educated people. Among these people, atheism is more common than in the population as a whole. I believe comparison of the percentage of atheists within journalism and the percentage of atheists in all upper middle class, college educated people would show a much smaller difference. The failure to take these factors into account implies that if the poll is real, it was probably commissioned by a partisan group which had a vested interest in the findings coming out as they did. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (07/12/85)
> If indeed most journalists are atheists, that shows that they have > acquired the mindset they OUGHT to have, that of skepticism. I agree with the scepticism part, but not the atheism part -- first because atheism is the result of belief, not of scepticism, and second because I doubt that many journalists are atheists. Agnostics, yes: they think (like a great many people) that one can't be sure of the answers to big questions such as the existence of God. I work on the fringes of the journalism business, and my impression is that scepticism and its component, agnosticism, are the general attitude there. Remember, a lot of good Christians are also agnostics!
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/15/85)
Tim Maroney: >Second, granting for the moment that the press is composed primarily of >atheists, what would you expect? Consider for a moment the nature of the >journalistic profession, that of skeptical inquiry. A journalist is not >supposed to believe ANYTHING unless he can objectively substantiate it. The >job of a journalist is to select among possibilities based solely on the >evidence. And, resurrection proof-mongers to the contrary, there simply is >not any objective evidence of God. A journalistic mindset thus demands >atheism. If indeed most journalists are atheists, that shows that they have >acquired the mindset they OUGHT to have, that of skepticism. The media seems to be less skeptical of some things than others. What determines the amount of skepticism has less to do with objective substantiation than the presuppositions of the group's own ideology. The issue of the existence of God shouldn't have as much to do with media bias as the presentation of religious perspective. The media controls what much of the public sees and how it sees it. I don't know where Tim gets the idea that "a journalistic mindset demands atheism". What right does the media have to filter events and opinion through and atheistic judgement on the existence of God or any other issue? Is there any objective evidence for the non-existence of God? What about skepticism toward atheistic presuppositions? Who provides the media viewers with that? Surely you don't equate the atheistic mindset with objectivity and skepticism itself. The atheist is skeptical about *certain* things; some different things than the theist. The media's unified stance in its particular brand of skepticism has a lot to do with that brand being accepted as the standard for objectivity. It becomes the unquestioned framework in which many view the world. I think that objectivity in media is a myth; a myth that the media itself likes to support. It wouldn't be as bad if the media's religious bias was not either played down so much or justified as having the more "objective" perspective (as Tim seems to be doing here). At least then people would be stimulated to think more critically about what the media is saying. (Which is really the best we could hope for, considering that objectivity in the media is a myth. It probably always will be, as long as any given ideology dominates among its members. Something close to objectivity might be achieved through diversity). >Third, again granting the "poll" findings, they are not statistically valid >because they do not take into account educational or economic factors. How do you know? Your first point complained that nobody named the poll. >Journalists tend to be upper middle class, college educated people. Among >these people, atheism is more common than in the population as a whole. I >believe comparison of the percentage of atheists within journalism and the >percentage of atheists in all upper middle class, college educated people >would show a much smaller difference. The failure to take these factors >into account implies that if the poll is real, it was probably commissioned >by a partisan group which had a vested interest in the findings coming out >as they did. The "much smaller difference" may still be significant. Your generalizations on percentages may be true enough but it in no way substantiates the bias of media members. To maintain that it does gives some kind of inherent propriety to upper middle class, college educated people in presenting *their* view of events. I suppose that you could say that among this same group of people the number of white males is also greater than in the general population. This says nothing about whether the perspective of Blacks and women are being represented adequately or with fairness in the media. Or does it? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
kene@tekecs.UUCP (Ken Ewing) (07/15/85)
From Chris Redmond: > > Remember, a lot of good Christians are also agnostics! > Can you elaborate a little on exactly what you mean here? Ken Ewing [decvax,ucbvax]!tektronix!tekecs!kene
credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (07/18/85)
> > Remember, a lot of good Christians are also agnostics! > Can you elaborate a little on exactly what you mean here? Well, I'll try. I suppose I was being a little flippant, or vague anyway -- but the point I was making was that being SURE of all our faith all the time is a blessing not given to very many of us. Plenty of Christians spend as much time wrestling with doubt, and carrying on in spite of the dry times, as we do basking in blissful certainty. I was talking just yesterday with a friend who was describing her progress from extreme fundamentalist Christianity to what I would consider a more moderate and mature Christianity. One important incident she mentioned came when she was a student at a Bible college. Some questions occurred to her, so she put them and writing and circulated them to some fellow-students and teachers. There was outrage that anyone would even want to discuss *questions* ! But it seems to me that the way to deal with questions is to acknowledge that they exist -- then and only then can we think about them, discuss them, pray about them. Chris
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (07/24/85)
Several people have taken issue with my statements about skepticism, journalism, and atheism. With all due respect, I feel that these objections stem from a lack of comprehension of skepticism. Atheism is a valid skeptical position, not a dogmatic one. Or perhaps I should say that it can be: certainly there are dogmatic atheists around. A true skeptic is skeptical even about his or her own beliefs. She or he never places a 100% certainty on anything, and does not believe in absolute truth or falsehood. To say "There is no God" for a true skeptic is equivalent to saying "I think there is probably no God." You see, a skeptical position demands that ALL statements be treated as false until they are proven to be true; and even then, only a provisional judgment of truth is rendered. This says nothing about the statement's absolute truth or falsehood, poorly-defined concepts that should be treated with skepticism in any case. In short, anyone who says either "There certainly is no God" or "There certainly is a God" is NOT, NOT, NOT a skeptic. On the other hand, someone who says "There is no God" and understands that this is simply a provisional judgment based on possibly inadequate information, like every other human judgment, IS a skeptic. Agnosticism is redundant for a true skeptic. If it isn't clear now why this is, then it never will be. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"