chap·lain
[chap-lin]
noun
1.
an ecclesiastic attached to the chapel of a royal court, college,etc., or to a military unit.
2.
a person who says the prayer, invocation, etc., for an organization or at an assembly.
It is of course also unsurprising that the PC chowderheads at Stanford University hired an atheist chaplain. Not an atheist counselor. Not an atheist therapist. An atheist chaplain.
You can't, as they say, make this stuff up. Hire someone as an advisor on religious studies who disavows religion in toto. Maybe they will search the Tea Party for someone to advise a leftist student organization. Or hire Joe Torre to manage their chemistry department.
The prime chowderhead in this story would appear to be Rev. Scotty McLennan, dean for religious life at Stanford University.
It does remind one, yet again, that people like Scotty McLennan (or Hector Avalos) should look up the term "useful idiot." If the gnu atheists win the day, there will be no more Departments of Religion or Deans for Religious Life. Something to look forward to, actually, in a "silver lining" sort of way.
Words do not have inherent meanings. Rather, they acquire meaning(s) by how they are used. The meanings of words frequently shift over time. This is simply another example. "Enormity", is another example.
ReplyDeleteHope that helps.
It's hard to take seriously someone who resorts to a dictionary for his argument. I suppose you look up "barn" in the dictionary when you want to know the definition and conclude that it is "A farm building used for storing grain or hay or livestock", and hence those physicists who talk about barns are just being silly.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey Shallit,
ReplyDelete"I suppose you look up "barn" in the dictionary when you want to know the definition and conclude that it is "A farm building used for storing grain or hay or livestock", and hence those physicists who talk about barns are just being silly."
This you consider an argument? That the use of the word barn, in a specialized, almost jargon sense, is analogous to the near oxymoronic atheist chaplain? Really?
I have found that people who discount dictionaries when they find them inconvenient, especially with some sort of condescending dismissal, will turn to them in a heartbeat when it suits them.
In this post you write "Well, he'd better get a better dictionary!"
What happened to blind "usage is king" there? Oh, but that doesn't count...
And in a comment on this post you write:
"Well, if you are confused about the meaning of words like "religious" or "supernatural", then a dictionary might be useful to find out how many other people use the word. "
Perhaps you should look up the word hypocrite. And then feel free to use it to mean "nose hair." Because, you know, usage is king. Except when it isn't.
I notice you don't give any argument why atheist chaplain is not a reasonable formulation. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, since "chaplain", in the sense of someone representing spiritual concerns at an institution, is clearly elastic enough to include people like humanists.
ReplyDeleteI think dictionaries can be useful guides to see how people use words, but they are often out of date, and people frequently stretch the boundaries of words beyond their initial meaning. I've never said anything more.
Your first example of my supposed hypocrisy is ridiculous, unless you think "theory" when used in "scienfific theory" typically means "imagination". Do you think it does? Are you arguing it does?
Your second example of my usage is perfectly consistent with what I said above. But by all means, try to find something nasty to say instead of admitting your original post was simply silly.