|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 863 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Teacher Fired for Disagreeing With Literal Interpretation of Bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 863 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
From my OP:
quote: Dr Adequate writes: Er ... which Bitterman broke, surely? I don't know how to answer this without sounding condescending, so if that happens, well I have no alternative. In the US colleges and universities philosophy classes are usually taught using the Socratic method which means that a controversial topic such as abortion, gay marriage, and even fundamentalist dogma may be discussed to get the students to critically examine their assumptions. Since this is a public college no one is forcing the students to attend or even change their beliefs, just to discuss the reasons behind their positions. How else could one teach a class in philosophy that would engage the student?
He should have used more neutral language, maybe something beginning with: "All the evidence available to historians ..." Perhaps, if he wanted to be a nice guy and make a technically more accurate statement. However, Genesis contradicts itself in just the order of creation in the two exclusive stories. Therefore, logically, at least part of the chapter must not be literally true and so 'myth' is a fair description. I see nothing inherently wrong with using a provocative and at least partially logically true statement in this example to spur discussion.
But if he just says "Genesis is a fairy tale", then isn't that the state treading on the toes of the churches? Only if it is forced upon a church in the middle of a sermon, or upon a religious college as part of the curriculum standards. To argue that some concepts, such as fundamentalist religious dogma are off-limits for discussion in a philosophy class in a public, tax-supported college or university is itself the real violation of state/church separation. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
On a personal level, what's wrong with that? Pastors and reverends regularly tell their livestocks that those of us that have been and are in academia are dumbasses. On a professional level, what's the difference between saying genesis is a fairy tale and cinderella is a fairy tale? Remember that equal treatment stuff? I would hate to not be able to refer to the little red riding hood as a fairy tale. Because everyone agrees that Cinderella is a fairy tale. People who believe in the biblical invisible sky-pixie get all offended when you challenge their beliefs. They equate "I think you might be wrong" to be the same as persecution. Dismissal or mockery of an idea is apparently wrong if it's also the sacred cow of a significant portion of the population. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Because everyone agrees that Cinderella is a fairy tale. People who believe in the biblical invisible sky-pixie get all offended when you challenge their beliefs. They equate "I think you might be wrong" to be the same as persecution. Dismissal or mockery of an idea is apparently wrong if it's also the sacred cow of a significant portion of the population. Aw Gosh. Sorry if they get up when their beliefs are challenged. Tough. They are free to believe there was a Great Wetting that Never Happened but they also need to be able to support that position if they expect anyone else to take it seriously. Or they can fall back on the Type 1 tactic of Special Pleading and Outright Denial if they want. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
Aw Gosh. Sorry if they get up when their beliefs are challenged. Tough. They are free to believe there was a Great Wetting that Never Happened but they also need to be able to support that position if they expect anyone else to take it seriously. Or they can fall back on the Type 1 tactic of Special Pleading and Outright Denial if they want. I couldnt even care less if they dont bother to support it outside of the context of a debate forum like this, or in a science classroom, etc. But getting all offended, firing people, and storming out of the classroom in tears are all examples of whiny little children whose beliefs are so weak they can't even be questioned. Honestly, they're like 4 year olds being told Santa doesn't exist - the idea crushes their entire world. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But getting all offended, firing people, and storming out of the classroom in tears are all examples of whiny little children whose beliefs are so weak they can't even be questioned. Honestly, they're like 4 year olds being told Santa doesn't exist - the idea crushes their entire world. Of course. But that is what we see here often. We are told we need to understand that Creationists start from a basic position that the Bible is Factually True. That fine, we understand that. We know they use that as a fixed position. Well tough. Unless they can support that position it means nothing and no one else is going to bother with it. If the Biblical Christians and Biblical Creationists want to partcipate on an equal footing they need to use the Type 2b method. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cypher227 Junior Member (Idle past 6032 days) Posts: 5 Joined: |
Did anyone else notice that, on the list of faculty members provided by a link earlier in this thread, that there is someone employed at Southwestern named Ann Coulter. Not the same person as most of us have heard of, but nonetheless amusing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
What's strange about this thread is the general assumption that fairies don't exist, and that describing the Adam and Eve story as a fairy tale automatically means it's untrue.
This attitude is insulting to believers in fairies. Christians should take the professor's words as being a compliment, because unlike them, we fairians actually have evidence for our beliefs. Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52VbWz4BjC4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
On a personal level, what's wrong with that? Pastors and reverends regularly tell their livestocks that those of us that have been and are in academia are dumbasses. On a personal level, nothing. I'm just considering what the U.S. Constitution actually says, as it has been applied by the courts.
On a professional level, what's the difference between saying genesis is a fairy tale and cinderella is a fairy tale? I guess the absence of a Church of Cinderella. I'm not saying that it makes perfect sense, I'm saying that it may be the law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In the US colleges and universities philosophy classes are usually taught using the Socratic method which means that a controversial topic such as abortion, gay marriage, and even fundamentalist dogma may be discussed to get the students to critically examine their assumptions. Since this is a public college no one is forcing the students to attend or even change their beliefs, just to discuss the reasons behind their positions. But I think that it may overstep the line when instead of asking the students to "critically examine their assumptions", or presenting them with the evidence that their assumptions are a lot of horsepucky, the teacher tells them that their assumptions are a lot of horsepucky. Now, it has been asked why this is different from blowing away belief in Cinderella, and I'll say again --- the bleedin' First Amendment. It's not perfect, but it's the law, it's what's there, it's why the forces of rightness won the Dover Panda Trial. This guy Bitterman may well have broken the law by what he's reported to have said.
Perhaps, if he wanted to be a nice guy and make a technically more accurate statement. However, Genesis contradicts itself in just the order of creation in the two exclusive stories. Therefore, logically, at least part of the chapter must not be literally true and so 'myth' is a fair description. But your argument here is that you're right and they're wrong. Of course I agree with you. But if you were a creationist standing up for a teacher who taught creationist blah, I bet you could explain how "evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, and so 'myth' is a fair description". And if I was a creationist, then I'd agree with that. Democracy is tricky, isn't it?
Only if it is forced upon a church in the middle of a sermon, or upon a religious college as part of the curriculum standards. To argue that some concepts, such as fundamentalist religious dogma are off-limits for discussion in a philosophy class in a public, tax-supported college or university is itself the real violation of state/church separation. But there's a difference between "off limits for discussion" and "off limits for pronouncement from on high". If some guy had told his students that Genesis was literally true, and had been sacked for that, would you be complaining that Genesis was "off limits for discussion", and talking about "intellectual freedom", or would you realise that he had in fact been doing something illegal?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, if a professor told a creationist that the Noachian Flood was a fairytale, should the Creationist sue them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4216 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Quote: Everyone has opinions and they should be respected
Quote: Well no, opinions shouldn't be respected! The right of an individual to have an opinion is what should be respected.______________________________________________________________________ Sorry for the poor grammar, that's what I meant. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5934 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Phat
if someone told me that..say...the Virgin Birth was a fairytale, I'd sue them too. Respectfully, Phat,the virgin birth is a fairy tale. However, I would not recommend suing me since I am worth little but have at her if you wish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
The flood is a minor point of contention.
The Virgin Birth is central to Christian belief. Jesus being just a human philosopher demolishes the power of the cross. IMHO, anyway
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes: The flood is a minor point of contention.The Virgin Birth is central to Christian belief. Then why do we see people trying to get the flood into science classes? Why don't we see people trying to get the virgin birth into science classes? It's pretty clear which anti-scientific point the anti-scientific crowd has chosen as the focus of its anti-scientific crusade. The question is: Is it "wrong" to be anti-scientific? Or is it just stupid? In a democracy, the law has to protect the anti-scientific along with the scientific, the stupid along with the sensible. In real life as at EvC, sometimes the stupid have to be given more leeway, not less. Edited by Ringo, : "their" --> "its". “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The Virgin Birth is central to Christian belief. Jesus being just a human philosopher demolishes the power of the cross. IMHO, anyway Yet you have never explained or supported that position. Since it is some belief that you seem either unwilling or unable to support, why would you get upset if someone called it a fairytale? This is important IMHO because your initial reaction of saying you would sue is almost as though someone had attacked you. What is it about certain beliefs you hold that makes them so weak that any questioning of them is seen by you as a physical attack on your person? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024