(04-23-2015 12:55 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: From my experience in actually taking several religious studies classes at Rice, I can say say that what goes on is education. Isn't that the purpose of any institution of higher learning?
The two such classes I remember best were 1) a overview of religions of the modern world - my first exposure to many religions including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and others - I didn't agree with everything I heard, but certainly had a better understanding than going in, i.e., I learned; and 2) history of the synoptic gospels, one of my favorite non-major courses at Rice, primarily because it was so well taught (thank-you Dr. Kelber).
I don't have a clue how my experience relate to Liberty's "tentpoles" and could care less. All I know is I won't condemn them or belittle them for what they believe, as Liberty University has never done anything to hurt me or mine and no one is forced to attend.
I'm completely on board with your first two paragraphs here. In particular, I couldn't agree more with education being the purpose of an institution of higher learning. Where you lose me is in your late claim that you couldn't care less about how religious studies classes relate Liberty's tentpole class, CRST 290. This is inconsistent with your sarcastic suggestion that "we should shut down all religious studies classes as well" after being presented with the clear and specific concerns about Liberty. To recap what I detailed in a
post upthread:
Liberty makes CRST 290 mandatory for all students. The class's syllabus-stated mission is "presenting the evidence and arguments
for creation and
against evolution" in order to "help students develop a clear and consistent Biblical creationist worldview and defend it".
For you to conflate the concerns about this fundamentally anti-science, anti-intellectual crusade at Liberty's core with the clearly valuable education you received in the religious studies classes you took, well... I don't get it.
(04-23-2015 12:55 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: As far as the others you mentioned and the extent of my tolerance, I never heard of them, but as far as I'm concerned, they are free to teach whatever they want. If someone wants to pay to learn about whatever they teach, why should I care. No one is forcing me or you to attend those schools or believe as they do.
First off, I need to clarify -- yes, I screwed this one up, and my thanks to Frizzy for correcting my error. I meant to reference Kepler College of
Astrological Arts and Sciences. My intent was to use it as an absurd extreme in my analogy, but the way I wrote it ("Astrophysical") it doesn't sound bad at all. Hopefully the "College of Metaphysical Studies" was enough that my message was able to pass, but in case it didn't:
The idea was to hold up two obviously extreme examples of "places of higher learning" that make a mockery of the idea of legitimate scientific inquiry and education. Thus leading to the question (rephrased): Would you be cool with your alma mater (and its strong academic reputation) competing as an equal with those two bad jokes? Bearing in mind that the arena of competition (NCAA sports) is the one that many here see as the most valuable branding opportunity available to Rice University. Would you really want Rice's halo of legitimacy to grant respectability to frauds like that, and/or want those two frauds to tarnish Rice?
I certainly don't.
But anyway, I don't believe you answered my question on this point. You said that you don't have a problem with them teaching what they teach, but the crux of my question went unaddressed. Would you want Rice to participate in an athletic conference with them? [And purely for the sake of discussion, let's say they're athletically as accomplished as, say, Boston College. Just picked that one out of a hat, really.]
(04-23-2015 12:55 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: BTW - Just to put things in perspective, I graduated from Rice with a BS in Chemical Engineering and have been in industry for 38 years, so I'm definitely not anti-science. I'm also not into putting down those who think differently than I do. I don't have to agree with them, but I will defend their right to believe as they choose as long as their beliefs are not causing physical harm to others
I like it. But to try my analogy again in a different arena: As an engineer, how would you feel about being invited to keynote on some area of your expertise, only to find out that the other speakers were going to be, say, an unrepentant Stanley Pons (cold fusion guy) and a nondeceased Stan Meyers (guy who claimed to build engines that used
water as their ultimate energy source). Is that something you'd want yourself and your professional reputation associated with?
(04-23-2015 12:55 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: (I'm not talking hurt feelings or sensibilities. Grow a pair or put on your big girl panties and get over it.)
Now I can't tell what straw man you're impaling here with the manly talk about not caring about hurt feelings, but I'm pretty sure that the "Grow a pair..." is directed at some hypothetical other whose feelings got hurt, and not at me. Let me know if I've got that wrong.
/
[split] Dr. K's Mid-year Update
