Certainly there are some traditions with Evangelicalism that are anti-intellectual, but not the whole of conservative Protestantism. I think the answer is a bit messier than someone wants to believe.

You are right — that is why BYU (mostly Mormon students) sends so many of its students on to get Ph.D.s around the country (BYUn has very few Ph.D. programs of its own). OK, I am being facetious.

BYU came in 10th in the country for the most students going on to get PhDs — right after UCLA and before MIT. That certainly attests to your thesis. More details here: http://byunews.byu.edu/releases/archive06/Aug/graduates/table.gif (and NSF also has the numbers, though I could not find the latest report)

Clark, I did not say “all Mormons are anti-intellectual.” This is why arguing on the internet is usually a waste of time, because people would rather argue against something stupid that you didn’t say than confront what you did say.

It’s also a problem with the precision of your statement. It’s not just people who are going to want to argue with you who are going to translate from “Mormonism does not have a long tradition of valuing learning and scholarship” into “Mormons are anti-intellectual” (and this isn’t the only problem with that statement). It’s also people who are inclined to agree with what you didn’t say. You can argue that’s not your responsibility, but that’d go over more sincerely if it weren’t a fairly short hop between the two statements.

I haven’t seen any evidence here to the contrary

So if this evidence were to exist, what would it look like?

Also, from which evidence did you conclude “the trends are clear?”

my opinion is colored by a handful of cases of stifling academic freedom

It’s hard to discuss this, because it’s not really clear which cases have colored your opinion, but if it’s the Wikipedia entry, there’s a few things that can be said that I think can dovetail with the excellent points Clark made about BYU.

It’s correct to say that academic freedom is constrained at BYU in ways it isn’t constrained at other institutions, but it’s incorrect to characterize it as a heavy, leaden blanket thrown over the entirety of scholarship. The constraints are more or less fenced-off areas of discourse (described fairly clearly in the numbered points under the “University standards” section in the wikipedia article). As Clark said, it’s one thing to argue that this is problematic for anyone strictly loyal to universally unfettered inquiry, and if this is the foundation of suspicion among many academics regarding Mormon educational institutions (in the literal organizational sense as well as the general social sense), it’s reasonably founded.

The problem with generalizing this real suppression of dissent to the entire realm of scholarship is that the rest of the field is so wide, and there really aren’t high profile examples I’m aware of in this much bigger realm (Evensen’s case is something of an exception for me, but this trips over a pretty torrid and tangled triangle involving not only the LDS church and the arts but the arts and academia, so I don’t think it’s germane to this discssion). It’s also arguable and probably demonstrable that serious scholarship is not only largely unfettered, it’s encouraged and supported.

And this is true to limits that I suspect might surprise some people. Sean asked for “important instances in which academic freedom was put before doctrinal correctness.” As is probably not surprising, in the life sciences there’s a history of some conflict between the church and the academy, in particular the fault line between evolution and creationism. But near as I can tell, even when visiting LDS apostles were giving sermons at BYU on how evolution doesn’t line up with LDS cannon (at least as late as 1980), faculty were and still are teaching it. This is sometimes surprising to *me*, given how silly BYU as an institution can be about small matters like facial hair. But I think it’s at least in part because as an institution, the university and the church recognize that the science *isn’t* a small matter. At least inside of LDS academia, there’s a real degree of cultural respect for scientific disciplines, and an understanding that even where there’s apparent conflicts with religious teachings, an accomplished student is going to have to know their stuff by the standards of the scientific discipline.

To most people with not much more than a casual knowledge of Mormonism, such as myself, its image is more closely associated with suppressing dissent than with championing free inquiry.

I think that’s clearly true in how it handles issues central to the church itself (doctrinal and moral issues). Outside of these areas this is much less clear.

I don’t agree with the characterization of my comments as being related to modal realism. The laws I was referencing would be applicable to any rational philosophical school.

http://transfigurism.org/community/blogs/lincoln_cannon/archive/2008/06/15/4648.aspx

When someone who isn’t even Mormon tries to throw you a cookie, it’s best not to throw that person under the bus…. especially when that non-Mormon went to school just north of you….

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-36617644.html

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,665194587,00.html

FSM, your point about nothingness is one way that modal realism gets off the ground. But they think that “everything exists”, not that this universe is somehow special to exist rather than others. (Look up def. and discussion from my link.) Your points above do nothing to explain why the laws would be just like they are, with the exact constants they are, and not some variation. Who can say with a straight face, considering the scope of what mathematics could define and describe, that the *particulars* of our laws are the unique expression of existence? That’s as silly as saying that the number 23 is reified into real brass numerals among all the numbers, for no good reason.

Yet I have explained elsewhere what sort of horrible problems come from that idea. Hence neither uniqueness nor the opposite extreme of everything existing works, instead there needs to be some ordering principle that selects out some or at least one possible worlds. To me, it’s no coincidence that this example is life-friendly (for example, just the right value of alpha, which has no intrinsic mathematical reason to be about 1/137.) But saying that it is like that because we are here is the fallacy of causal retrodiction. The outcome (like our being here) is of course going to be consistent with whatever initial conditions there were, so outcomes can’t “explain” the initial conditions.

I will also say that the theology of Mormonism, which I know a bit about, is utterly absurd. Mormonism takes the absurdism of Christianity and amplifies it in unique ways. One part of it is that they have “prophets” who make pronouncements about things which are beyond question. If I had to make a general observation it is that Mormons are admonished to not ask questions which are outside the boundaries of their faith or what the prophets tell them. This is not very conducive for intellectual development in my opinion.

The religion is comparatively new and is evolving as have all religions. I has in the 20th century evolved to model itself in a neo-orthodox form. I presume this is to make it assume the respectable forms of mainline Protestantism. It may change in time and could become less authoritarian than it has been. It is the fastest growing religion in America and the world. The next fastest growing religion in America is Islam, which has its dubious elements to it as well.

Lawrence B. Crowell

They never tried to convert anyone, and they were all very intelligent, motivated, kind, open-minded to science, and in general just a pretty good bunch of guys.

I don’t know if that is a representative sampling, but as in most things in life, it is unkind to make overbroad generalizations about groups of people.

What I said (mildly re-arranged) was “Mormonism does not have a long tradition of valuing learning and scholarship,” readily noting that this was a wild generalization. I might be wrong; as I willingly admit, my opinion is colored by a handful of cases of stifling academic freedom, plus no personal knowledge of any such tradition (plus some personal knowledge of actual Mormons). I haven’t seen any evidence here to the contrary, just a few anecdotes from partisans.

But anyway, I’m done with it; if anyone would like to enter such evidence into the comments, be my guest.

Why can humans understand it?
Because we created the language

Why are humans rational?
So they can efficiently achieve selfish goals

Why is the universe orderly?
Its not. Its chaotic and random

If the universe is fundamentally mathematical, why can humans do the math?
Once again, because we created the language

Where did the laws come from?
They are due to symmetry

Why those laws and not others?
Because the universe is isotropic and homogeneous at large scales

Why are there laws at all?
Because we exist

All I’d suggest is that even if you think the idea of having a religious school a bad idea it doesn’t follow that those attempting to have a religious school are anti-intellectual. They just disagree with you over what ought be allowed in the university system. Now the Mormons attempting to reconcile the two might well be wrong on political grounds. It doesn’t seem to follow logically in the least that they aren’t committed to scholarship, to academic standards of scholarship, nor to intellectual pursuits.

It just seems a category mistake to assume that because a religion has a religious school that may be problematic that they are anti-intellectual.

Sean, regarding issues of intellectual freedom (presumably at BYU although you don’t say) I still think that amazingly problematic. It suggests that because a particular Mormon in charge at BYU had one view of academic freedom that therefore all Mormons are anti-intellectual? Doesn’t that bother you in the least? How is that logic different from saying, “I got mugged by a black man therefore all blacks are criminals?”

Further you mischaracterize the evidence that people have brought up as “BYU has a lot of physics majors.” I’d agree that’s irrelevant (and probably not that true, speaking as someone who graduated in physics from BYU). But that’s a strawman. The point was that Mormons disproportionately go into science and presumably are very productive in science. This was a counterpoint to, “distinguished by a history of cultivating scholarly achievement.”

Now it appears that your positions is that because the administration of a single University disagree with you on some issues of academic freedom all Mormons are anti-intellectual. That’s fine if that’s what you belief. I’m just surprised you’d be the type to label millions of people on the basis of the decisions of just a few that don’t really seem related to scholarly achievement.