Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
I understand what you're saying. I suspect you are approaching this with a bias that would make study of this type difficult for you.
It's easy for me to say we should check our preconceived notions at the door, but it's something else entirely to actually be able to do it. Maybe this is why a study of religion in the manner I've described hasn't been done in a university in any major way to my knowlege.
 |
IMO, that's what my approach would be doing. The prof could simply lay out the facts that we have for and against the argument, story or issue without adding his own bias and let the students decide. The difference in my wording is it sticks strictly to the facts. Yours adds a bias in that you believe that the story is false and that you'd have to be stupid to believe it.
To take away the religious aspect of this, a comparable example would be something like string theory:
Is it a provable fact? No.
Is it provable to be false? No.
Is it useful to teach the current theory and lay out the facts (for and against) that people have gathered regarding it in a university setting? Yes.
Would it be appropriate for the prof to say for sure that it is true or false? I don't think so - perhaps weigh in with "I believe/don't believe this theory is correct and here's why..." but to say for certain? No.