I haven't seen this yet, but I'm posting the link anyways for anyone interested. (I won't have time to see it until after work :).
"Augustine College was pleased to have Dr. R.R. Reno deliver our 17th annual Weston Lecture.
Today's academic culture places great emphasis on critical questioning and doubt, but fails to train in how to pursue and assent to truth. In his talk Dr. Reno argues that the life of the mind is based on our capacity to know and affirm truth, and for that we need a pedagogy of piety - an approach to instruction ordered towards the affirmation of that truth."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHum_uXjAAs&feature=em-subs_digest
As I haven't seen it myself yet, the question is...
Is this guy a highly educated prisoner of indoctrination and fear, or does he have some points?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I was going to say impossible. Then looked up the college on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_College).
The very first line front the article:
"Augustine College is a small, u̲n̲a̲c̲c̲r̲e̲d̲i̲t̲e̲d̲, unincorporated, private, alternative, non-denominational Christian, 1-Year Liberal Arts College in Ottawa, Ontario."
Ok now it makes sense...
I stopped watching as soon as he said piety is more important than critical thinking.
Well I listened to the whole thing. It was basically an argument for presuppositionalism, even though that word is not actually used.
At one point he discusses how it is better to have the default position of believing every claim made, instead of the position that we should reject claims by default. In other words he argues we should reverse the null hypothesis.
Of course that never works, no one is crazy enough to actually apply hypothesis, as I tried to point out how silly that would be here (http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/how-do-i-cut-through-a...). Instead they want to apply it only to the ideas they cherish, and then apply the skeptic's standard to everything else.
It always comes down to special pleading: their religion does not have to be exposed to the challenges they apply to all other ideas.
Working a bit late so I haven't seen it yet. Your comments at not surprising...
So the diagnosis is: a highly educated prisoner of indoctrination and fear?
It sounds more like William lane Craig 2
How do these people obtain their doctorates degrees?
This cat is a sham. The individual he portrays as an normal sampling for critical thinking is more of a half-witted excessive compulsive. He's really reaching to support his position and comes off as a beggar.
Dismissed.
PHD in theology, that is how.
One cannot critique critical thinking, while assuming what they are saying is pertaining to critical thought. Contradiction.
He even brings this up himself and can't avoid smirking as he does. Then he goes on to try and make it sound reasonable anyway.
I think he knew he was speaking to the best type of sheep he could find.
That is the only way you can get away with such stupid arguments.
That might be why he is smirking. He thinks "they believe what I'm saying, yeeha!".