tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3681740221183857496.post4389688697604744169..comments2023-09-07T00:55:11.381-07:00Comments on χειρ: teach the controversy (but try a few others too)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3681740221183857496.post-30291537787997160862008-09-26T01:39:00.000-07:002008-09-26T01:39:00.000-07:00As much as I have at different times liked each of...As much as I have at different times liked each of these perspectives, I find that if I want to be able to engage anyone in a meaningful conversation on the topic I cannot speak from only one point of view. Since it is the <I>conversation</I> about these ideas that I think is even more important than the ideas themselves, I want to simply present a few of the best advocates for each side and then see what happens (or doesn't happen. The unexamined life is just as enjoyable isn't it?) Some people jealously guard their beliefs, others don't care, but most people have developed an opinion on the subject that has changed or grown over time, and which they continue to modify.Eric Schaetzlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17658689292611460708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3681740221183857496.post-87012833915343647902008-09-23T21:51:00.000-07:002008-09-23T21:51:00.000-07:00Oh, I have to say something about "teach the contr...Oh, I have to say something about "teach the controversy", too. As has been pointed out in the blogosphere, calling for the teaching of creationism in biology class as an alternative to evolution <EM>is</EM> the creationist agenda. A better approach is the one that Daniel Dennet proposes where students are free to take or not take a religions course that studies creationism among other religious beliefs--and not just Christianity. The controversy has no place in a science class but who would complain if it was taught in a philosophy course or a religions course? Well, nobody, frankly. The fact is that there is no science to back up creationism, and the only reason people want it to be put in biology classes is to belittle the theory of evolution. So let's not teach the controversy in science classes.Garhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02052227290726839266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3681740221183857496.post-15066984637281635382008-09-23T21:35:00.000-07:002008-09-23T21:35:00.000-07:00What pops into my mind is that you have to conside...What pops into my mind is that you have to consider the audience that these two people were preaching to. The friar is obviously pushing the Catholic line on how God is love and how monks and nuns are just the most lovable, kind people ever. The revolutionary is trying to stir up a war against the Orthodox theocracy ruling Russia by casting priests as slaveholders. I think they are somewhat right in different respects and somewhat wrong.<BR/><BR/>Another thought:<BR/>Atheists realize that religion and spirituality are fairly silly, simplistic ideas. Yet, atheists also cultivate a deep respect for life as something time consuming and delicate. A true atheist would very much agree with Saint Francis because of the utterly fundamental knowledge that there is only one chance at life for every lifeform, that no two lifeforms have the same experience (conscious or not). The doubt/faith line, too, is wholly consistent with an atheist perspective if faith is not in a god but in the belief that whether good or bad, the experience is what counts.<BR/><BR/>Atheists may be more prone to depressive realism, but in times that demand care due to long-term consequences, atheists would surely be more courageous than someone who thought there was an afterlife, continuation of essence, or a rebirth after death. And that ties back into the slave mindset talked about by Bakunin, a slave will depend on its master while a free person will forge their own future as long as they are alive and physically/mentally competent.Garhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02052227290726839266noreply@blogger.com