Intelligent Design Philosophy

ID-friendly atheist U Colorado prof Bradley Monton resigns

Spread the love

By mutual agreement:

The University of Colorado has agreed to pay philosophy professor Brad Monton $120,000 plus the rest of his salary for the academic year — about $65,000 — in exchange for his resignation.

Monton’s departure, which Chancellor Phil DiStefano termed “a business decision,” comes during a year of turmoil for the Boulder campus’ philosophy department, which has been accused of creating a culture that’s perceived to be unfriendly to women.

Monton had been under investigation for potentially violating the university’s amorous relationship policy with students, CU officials confirmed. Both Monton and CU deny any fault or liability to each other, according to the settlement agreement provided to the Daily Camera by both Monton and the university.

Monton quoted;

Monton declined to be interviewed for this story, but provided the Camera with an email he sent to colleagues in the philosophy department on Friday.

“As you may have gathered, I’ve been unhappy with the administration’s recent treatment of me and others in the philosophy department,” he wrote. “But I’m not interested (here or anywhere) in dwelling on the past; the good news is that the administration and I have reached a settlement agreement that will enable me to pursue other interests.”

More later, when we have it. No speculation.

We’ve now and then published short excerpts from one of his books. Here’s one: Bradley Monton on methodological naturalism and “control of the supernatural”

If there is general interest, we will link to more.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

19 Replies to “ID-friendly atheist U Colorado prof Bradley Monton resigns

  1. 1
    Silver Asiatic says:

    I dont know where to submit a news item. Maybe the News Desk link could give a submission box? In any case this looked like an interesting Op from The Atlantic. Not much original but a debatable conclusion.

    http://m.theatlantic.com/natio.....on/382983/

  2. 2
    News says:

    submitted, thanks.

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    I’m inclined to believe the official explanation in this case. The Humanities areas at leftist universities are the only remaining No Girls Allowed Clubs. They’ve escaped punishment by the Die-Versitarians for decades because they were providing ideological cover for the same Die-Versitarians. But sooner or later the founders get purged. It Is The Way Of Lenin.

  4. 4
    News says:

    polistra, I am inclined to not believe anything until I hear more.

  5. 5
    Timaeus says:

    polistra:

    I don’t know what you are talking about. The humanities faculties in most universities have been increasingly (and self-consciously) hiring women since the 1990s — to the point of “reverse discrimination” in the early 1990s, where in many cases, women without Ph.D.s or any published books were getting interviews ahead of men with Ph.D.s completed, and published books to boot — and in many departments the proportion of women to men is now almost 1 to 1, whereas in 1965 it would have been 1 to 10. And it is the *more* leftist, not the *less* leftist, schools, faculties, and departments that have been striving for “gender balance.”

    The more left-wing a philosophy prof is, the more sure you can be that he will say: “We don’t have enough women in this department; our next several hirings should all be female, to redress the balance.” (Of course, he didn’t want that reasoning applied just the year before, when *he* was applying for *his* job — but hypocrisy among university professors is just standard these days, so that’s not surprising.)

  6. 6
    Graham2 says:

    And the relevance of all this is …

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “And the relevance of all this is …”

    You may just as well ask what is the real relevance of anything in the atheistic worldview that Bradley Monton holds?

    The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
    ? Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

    “No one looking at the vast extent of the universe and the completely random location of homo sapiens within it (in both space and time) could seriously maintain that the whole thing was intentionally created for us.”
    Tim Maudlin – NYU philosopher

    The Absurdity of Life Without God by William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: First, there is no ultimate meaning without immortality and God. If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life? Does it really matter whether he ever existed or not? It might be said that his life was important because it influenced others or affected the course of history. But that shows only a relative significance to his life, not an ultimate significance. His life may be important relative to certain other events. But what is the ultimate significance to any of those events? If all of the events are meaningless, then what can be the ultimate significance of influencing any of them? Ultimately it makes no difference.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....9706/posts
    video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJqkpI1W75c

    Fortunately, despite what Dawkins, and Tim Maudlin, and other atheists in general may believe, the Copernican principle, i.e. the principle of mediocrity, has now been ‘scientifically’ overturned, and thus restoring the meaning and purpose to our lives that the atheists falsely thought was in vain,,

    The overturning of the Copernican principle
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A0G-rdB5rvDhs1pkjkhtxup_4DMhvc2vYGpifdoNmtw/edit

    Moreover, since the ability to assign meaning has to exist before information that means anything can be created, then the finding of information to be foundational to life, (in DNA, Proteins and RNA), is equivalent to finding that there must be an overall meaning for life to have been created.

    Music and Verse:

    Mandisa – Esther – Born For This – music video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxFCber4TDo

    — Matthew 10:29-30
    For only a penny you can buy two sparrows, yet not one sparrow falls to the ground without your Father’s consent. As for you, even the hairs of your head have all been counted.

    Of supplemental note:
    At around the 15:00 – 17:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Neal spoke about how she, when in the presense of God and being able to see things from that much higher perspective, finally understood why God allows evil in the world and how our limited perspective severely clouds our judgments and our reactions to those tragedies in our lives. (The take home message is to trust God no matter what)

    Dr. Mary Neal’s Near-Death Experience – (Life review portion starts at the 13:00 minute mark) – Sept. 2014 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=as6yslz-RDw#t=787

  8. 8
    Graham2 says:

    BA77: So what do you think is the relevance ?

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Graham2, If I’m not mistaken, I believe you hold fairly closely to an atheistic worldview, so the question you should be asking is of yourself and not of me. i.e. what possible relevance is anything in your life if atheism really is true?

    Frankly, I can’t see how anyone could live there lives that way, and in fact it is impossible for people to live their lives as if they had absolutely no meaning or purpose, i.e. no real relevance!:

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    “Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
    Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules.”
    – Cornelius Hunter
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10344804_736790473055959_5027794313726938258_n.png?oh=32dcc64a81815fd8fbf5884ea44490ed&oe=548E8745&__gda__=1418537725_911886dd89430d275c0e393a46afdb55

    In fact it is impossible to do science in the first place without presupposing purpose on some level:

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

  10. 10
    Graham2 says:

    BA77: Not too hot on this question/answer thing are you.

  11. 11
    Robert Byers says:

    If universities discriminate to move women up then its not just a unfriendly culture to men but a profound rejection of the social contract represented by political contracts that the people have the absolute right, in their country, to pursue and prevail regardless of identity.
    I understand the culyure is to discriminate against men to bring the right answer to who deserves what in universities. elsewhere too.
    its all about accusation of secret motivations however courts backing up affirmative action are backing up accusations of secret motivations.
    they reach into presumptions that people think all things should be 50/50 in prestiges/intellectual professions.
    I do accuse the last decades of interference with men in hiring/promotion.
    thats my opinion but its legal because the establishment not only does it but made great court decisions based on accusations of secret motivations being proven by results in identity have/have nots.
    Withour trial men have been found guilty now and in the past of discriminating against women getting the high things.
    the men never had their day in court or anyways rights as men. jUst as citizens.
    feminism attacks men on identity but not on citizenship rights. so men have no protection from establishment conclusions about who deserves what.
    anything that can’t be fixed reveals never is a cross section of america/Canada. nOt just sports.
    Interference is not just immoral, illegal, and profoundly intrusive to mankind but gets in the way of progress.
    universities should be the leaders in fair and square based on merit and not identity percentages.
    I think most people would agree.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    “Not too hot on this question/answer thing are you.”

    I’m all for you answering the question properly, i.e. ‘Of what relevance is anything that ever happens in your atheistic worldview?’

    In Theism, although we may not understand the importance, ie. relevance, of why certain things happen, we know that nothing happens without a purpose, whereas in Atheism nothing happens for any real purpose.

  13. 13
    groovamos says:

    BA77:

    Frankly, I can’t see how anyone could live there lives that way, and in fact it is impossible for people to live their lives as if they had absolutely no meaning or purpose, i.e. no real relevance!

    It’s pretty simple to put it into words although the words really won’t convey.

    I was maybe 75% agnostic, 25% Christian in high school. To be honest my parents’ skepticism of biblical literalism rubbed off on me even though as southern Baptists we went to church 3 times a week.

    From there to college at Vanderbilt during the rise of hippie self indulgence made for God to be a “drag” on all the selfish fun stuff like getting as much sex as possible to make up for growing self-doubt. Naturally the campus leftist worldview supported all of the stupidity and I became an atheist. But of course there were hints of cohorts seeing mystical states while using psychedelics, and I think this helped give rise to the “Jesus people” movement but not totally devoid of a fear factor, or so I thought. My sister joined up with that crowd after too much LSD experimentation caused uncomfortable fissures in her ego.

    The ego thing is key. The ego can cause a materialist (non-materialists also) to go unconscious on a whole host of things. We see examples on this board, and I have pointed it out to them, how these people come up with “reasons” for their vituperation such as how us ID folk lie and we are spreading ignorance. And they can never explain why they keep coming back for more. The truth is the ego lies to all of us, but materialism is an intellectual psycho-mechanism for living in service to the ego — and trapped in fear since the ego tortures with promises of oblivion at death. The ego can even convince people of their fearlessness, astoundingly, but then the fear goes more deeply unconscious and drives neurotic behavior and unpleasant nocturnal dreams. I could go into how I left materialism behind (TWICE!), but leave it for another day.

  14. 14
    Graham2 says:

    BA77: I asked first: what is the relevance of the whole thread ? Not a complicated question. If you don’t like who is asking it, just pretend its someone else.

  15. 15
    gmilling says:

    RB: //I think most people would agree.”//

    No, they wouldn’t. You must have lost a job competition to a woman and blamed it on feminism rather than the fact that she was better qualified.

    Wasn’t it your views on women that got you banned the last time?

  16. 16
    Robert Byers says:

    gmilling.
    nope. never lost a job and unrelated to what i said.
    Yes most people would agree these days.
    There is so a agenda and presumptions and goals to fix things and make the right results.
    Yes I accuse the establishment of interference based on secret motives to control who gets what1
    you accuse and so can’t complain when others do a more accurate accusation.
    Justice and equity and fair trial must rule a free nation and people.
    If there are ideas in conflict then so be it.
    The bad guys always try to stop the good guys from questioning the way things are.
    I think I’m right and i thing more and more people are realizing there is a problem.
    In fact creationism is just another battlefield in the arena of important conflicting ideas on structuring civilization.
    Its all the same equation of right and wrong.

  17. 17
    Timaeus says:

    gmilling @15:

    I believe that Robert Byers’s punch line was:

    “Universities should be the leaders in fair and square based on merit and not identity percentages. I think most people would agree.”

    I think this is correct. Most people would agree with that statement. Most people do not think that universities should have to hire X percentage of blacks, Latinos, women, homosexuals, etc. Most people, when they invest tens of thousands of dollars in their higher education, often taking on crushing student loans in the process, want to have the *best* teachers in their subject areas, whether those teachers be white or black or yellow, male or female, etc. Quality comes first.

    Your speculations about Mr. Byers’s motivation are unwelcome. He gave non-personal reasons for his views. To impute to him personal prejudice, when you do not know him personally, is to do him an injustice. Also, arguments from alleged motivation are essentially a form of argumentum ad hominem, and have no place in serious discussion of ideas.

  18. 18
    Timaeus says:

    polistra:

    Are you going to respond to my comment in 5 above?

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Graham2 at 14,,, if I did not ‘like you’ I would not be concerned that you answer the question you posed to its deepest level fairly. i.e. “Of what purpose, besides this post, is anything in the atheistic worldview you hold???”

    I want you, because I ‘like you’ on some level, to accept the unfathomable treasure that comes in accepting the truth that your life has a God given, eternal, purpose. If I did not ‘like you’ on some level, I would not care one iota that you believe in a lie. In the horrid lie that your life, your relatives lives, and indeed the entire universe, has no purpose whatsoever,,,

    A few notes as to the irrational denial of purpose that is inherent to atheism
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-534035

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    The Easter Question – Eben Alexander, M.D. – March 2013
    Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,,
    Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that — a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn’t simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one.
    But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it’s-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,,
    We are, really and truly, made in God’s image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation — one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone.
    But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It’s not the world we actually live in.,,,
    ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer… and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....79741.html

Leave a Reply