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.
|
Any competent "prof"/ HS Social Science teacher would be poking holes in every religion, especially in regards to creation stories but also to how the invisible gods manipulate every day life to the benefit of their believers. It's ridiculous. You turn the fine lens of science to any religion and you know what you'll find. What, does the Catholic (oops, meant Quebec) want a generation of atheists? No, but that's what they'll get.
And we all know that when Quebecors lose their religion they become nationalists.