Gunnar wrote:I agree that it is an incredibly stupid and ignorant law. No students should be penalized for their religious beliefs, but they should be required to understand and competently explain currently established scientific theories and the evidence supporting them, whether or not they believe in them. Failing that, they deserve a poor grade, no matter how strongly they believe in the innate superiority of their faith based convictions.
Similarly, atheists taking a course on comparative religions and their truth claims should be required to accurately state and explain what those truth claims are and their historical context, even if they believe they are nothing but a bunch of hooey. Failing that, they deserve a poor grade, no matter how confident they are in the superiority of objective, scientifically established truth.
Gunnar, yours is the more gentle, soft spoken version of my brain.
Thanks! That is one of the nicest compliments(?) I ever received!
Last edited by Guest on Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Gunnar wrote:I agree that it is an incredibly stupid and ignorant law. No students should be penalized for their religious beliefs, but they should be required to understand and competently explain currently established scientific theories and the evidence supporting them, whether or not they believe in them. Failing that, they deserve a poor grade, no matter how strongly they believe in the innate superiority of their faith based convictions.
Similarly, atheists taking a course on comparative religions and their truth claims should be required to accurately state and explain what those truth claims are and their historical context, even if they believe they are nothing but a bunch of hooey. Failing that, they deserve a poor grade, no matter how confident they are in the superiority of objective, scientifically established truth.
Gunnar, yours is the more gentle, soft spoken version of my brain.
Same here. I get pretty strident in an argument sometimes (i'm sure no one has noticed). Gunnar has a knack for saying the same thing in a gentler way that I envy.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
EAllusion wrote: ... (S)tudents are graded on "substance and relevance" which is another way of saying that conservative Christian teachers can positively grade conservative Christian answers by injecting alternative, vague criteria.
This will get interesting for the students of those teachers who might be, say, LDS. Or Satanists. Insert just about anything there.
I wonder how the teachers will be trained up on how to evaluate the "substance and relevance" of religious views outside of their own that they're probably not terribly familiar with. I'd like to get an answer from someone who at least claims to be religious, for starters.
well I claim to be religious. I think Gunners explanation was excellent. I suspect it is not quite what some people were thinking of but it is exactly what should be considered.
Res Ipsa wrote:Same here. I get pretty strident in an argument sometimes (i'm sure no one has noticed). Gunnar has a knack for saying the same thing in a gentler way that I envy.
I don't know about the stridency of your arguments. I know they are always coolly rational, impressively well-informed and pretty much unassailable. As is the case with our mutual friend schmo (a.k.a. POMM), you have, at times, caused me to change my mind. I have learned much more from you than you ever will learn from me!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Res Ipsa wrote:Same here. I get pretty strident in an argument sometimes (i'm sure no one has noticed). Gunnar has a knack for saying the same thing in a gentler way that I envy.
I don't know about the stridency of your arguments. I know they are always coolly rational, impressively well-informed and pretty much unassailable. As is the case with our mutual friend schmo (a.k.a. POMM), you have, at times, caused me to change my mind. I have learned much more from you than you ever will learn from me!
Thanks! But don't bet on that...
Maybe POMM is the Id., I'm the ego, and you're the superego.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
huckelberry wrote:well I claim to be religious. I think Gunners explanation was excellent. I suspect it is not quite what some people were thinking of but it is exactly what should be considered.
Thanks, huck! You are another one high on my list of most respected posters! Your endorsement means a lot to me.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Perfume on my Mind wrote:It's only a compliment to the extent that saying your brain is like mine is a compliment. Some might be quite insulted by that. :)
Not me!!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Res Ipsa wrote:Maybe POMM is the Id., I'm the ego, and you're the superego.
hehehe
I'm not sure if this is accurate, but it sure entertained me.
I'll assume the id. Why not?
I think the id has the most fun.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
