Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaneuf3
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.
|
Okay, that sounds like a reasonable way to have an interesting discussion/debate. But to actually study the claims of religion, we're going to have to be more analytical and look at things with an empirical lens.
Should we ask the Cree what stars are? They have stories that have been handed down orally for centuries that explain what stars are and I believe stars can talk in Cree lore. Or if you were interested in factual information about stars, would you ask an astronomist who studies space empirically.
Sure you could always come back and say well maybe some stars do talk to some people sometimes. It has happened in our past and could happen again. You can't disprove that.
Well, no, I can't disporve that, but based on empirical evidence it is logical to dismiss it.