PDA

View Full Version : Mike Licona lecture questioned at college



KingsGambit
04-22-2014, 03:48 PM
It seems some people do not think that university funds can be used for this purpose. When I was in college, my university paid to have Richard Dawkins speak on The God Delusion, and I don't remember anybody protesting.

http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/local/jesus-talk-has-differences-surfacing-before-event/article_01a28c2e-ca47-11e3-bd0d-001a4bcf887a.html

Manwë Súlimo
04-22-2014, 03:55 PM
It seems some people do not think that university funds can be used for this purpose. When I was in college, my university paid to have Richard Dawkins speak on The God Delusion, and I don't remember anybody protesting.

http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/local/jesus-talk-has-differences-surfacing-before-event/article_01a28c2e-ca47-11e3-bd0d-001a4bcf887a.html

Erm, universities exist for this kind of thing, dumbasses.

KingsGambit
04-22-2014, 04:09 PM
The way I see it, controversy here will probably just increase the attendance of the lecture.

Manwë Súlimo
04-22-2014, 04:16 PM
I bet for all their bluster, when it comes down to it in the Q&A, they'll be the ones offering the most infantile objections.

Psychic Missile
04-22-2014, 04:57 PM
I came into this thinking it was just a free speech matter, but two related points in the article stand out to me: The talk violates the Board of Regents policy and the lecturer is being paid through student tuition.

Darth Executor
04-22-2014, 05:08 PM
It only violates the board if you're a fundamentalist atheistard who thinks any academic lecture that supports a religious truth is a "religious event".

The second point is particularly laughable considering how much money colleges spend on socially liberal garbage.

Raphael
04-22-2014, 05:15 PM
I came into this thinking it was just a free speech matter, but two related points in the article stand out to me: The talk violates the Board of Regents policy and the lecturer is being paid through student tuition.

Would you have any issues with it if Richard Dawkins was coming to speak on the God Delusion under the same terms (to use KG's example)

TimelessTheist
04-22-2014, 05:26 PM
It only violates the board if you're a fundamentalist atheistard who thinks any academic lecture that supports a religious truth is a "religious event".

The second point is particularly laughable considering how much money colleges spend on socially liberal garbage.

The hilarious part is, "atheist-tards" 'still' don't understand the 1st Amendment. All it says is that the 'federal government' can't make any laws establishing or respecting religion. Religious events are not mandated laws.

KingsGambit
04-22-2014, 05:50 PM
I'm not going to automatically say that the objection is totally without merit... after all, universities have such bylaws. But I'm going to say that I doubt they apply. I imagine the point is that speakers shouldn't be brought in just for evangelism. Scholars take positions on issues. Political science professors are often very outspoken on politics; engineering professors are often outspoken on political issues involving scientific issues; religious studies professors (I don't know about this college but my public university had a Religious Studies department, and supposedly none of its professors were theists...) are obviously not going to be completely neutral on religious issues, as pure neutrality there is impossible. Apparently they're saying the study of religious movements is okay but that miracles cannot be considered... so it seems to me that the real issue here is limiting study to the confines that they want (no miracles). The thing is that Licona's book extensively addresses/defends his right to consider miracles as a historian, and I think he makes a pretty good argument that miracles can be considered in a religiously charged context.

And really people, grow up. The whole "x-tard" thing is childish.

Psychic Missile
04-22-2014, 06:55 PM
Would you have any issues with it if Richard Dawkins was coming to speak on the God Delusion under the same terms (to use KG's example)

Yes. He's not a philosopher, and philosophy is where that kind of talk belongs, so I don't think it would have any scholastic value.

My main objection comes from the money being taken from tuition. Let's say we have an atheist club and a Christian club on a campus, and the each want to bring in a person to speak. I would have no problem with that money coming from funds allotted to each club, donations, or a non-profit.

firstfloor
04-23-2014, 12:24 AM
Erm, universities exist for this kind of thing, dumbasses.
This is not an appropriate teaching subject for a University. It may be suitable for student debates where both sides of an argument are presented. Universities are places where Descartes rules. If the University values its reputation it will keep supernaturalism out.

It is proper to discuss the Bible as literature in Universities but as soon as you claim that the literature is narrating real historical events of a supernatural nature (e.g. visions of tablecloths lowered from heaven) you have crossed a line and you deserve to be mocked for your efforts. Supernaturalism belongs in Churches, not Universities.

Manwë Súlimo
04-23-2014, 12:31 AM
Glad to see that you assume a truth claim full stop without even entertaining the idea that a debate could be had (especially funny considering that the vast majority of human beings throughout all time have been theists).

Raphael
04-23-2014, 12:38 AM
This is not an appropriate teaching subject for a University. It may be suitable for student debates where both sides of an argument are presented. Universities are places where Descartes rules. If the University values its reputation it will keep supernaturalism out.

It is proper to discuss the Bible as literature in Universities but as soon as you claim that the literature is narrating real historical events of a supernatural nature (e.g. visions of tablecloths lowered from heaven) you have crossed a line and you deserve to be mocked for your efforts. Supernaturalism belongs in Churches, not Universities.
If the supernatural event is a real historical event then it is an appropriate subject.
Mike Licona is presenting evidence demonstrating that it was a real historical event.

It is telling that you rule out the supernatural from being real historical events as a priori, without being willing to consider the evidence.

Raphael
04-23-2014, 12:40 AM
Yes. He's not a philosopher, and philosophy is where that kind of talk belongs, so I don't think it would have any scholastic value. Fair enough


My main objection comes from the money being taken from tuition. Let's say we have an atheist club and a Christian club on a campus, and the each want to bring in a person to speak. I would have no problem with that money coming from funds allotted to each club, donations, or a non-profit.But if Mike Licona is presenting evidence that the Resurrection was a valid historical event then it is not just a religious discussion.

firstfloor
04-23-2014, 12:43 AM
Glad to see that you assume a truth claim full stop without even entertaining the idea that a debate could be had (especially funny considering that the vast majority of human beings throughout all time have been theists).

Truth, spiritual or otherwise is not the issue. He claims to be an historian and he is giving a lecture. I don’t think it is a debate, is it? What he is really doing is preaching and he should do it in a seminary or a church, not at a University. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Manwë Súlimo
04-23-2014, 12:49 AM
You infantile fool, you trying to equate somebody establishing the historicity of a supposed event using the historical method to preaching proves either your lack of intelligence or level of intellectual honesty. Either option isn't flattering to you.

firstfloor
04-23-2014, 12:56 AM
You infantile fool, you trying to equate somebody establishing the historicity of a supposed event using the historical method to preaching proves either your lack of intelligence or level of intellectual honesty. Either option isn't flattering to you.
In Universities, Descartes rules. If you want to learn spooky history, go to seminary.

Psychic Missile
04-23-2014, 03:37 AM
But if Mike Licona is presenting evidence that the Resurrection was a valid historical event then it is not just a religious discussion.

A school lecture organized by a student org. is not a place to present evidence for something. Why should he not present this evidence to his peers? I think we can all hazard a guess.

Carrikature
04-23-2014, 07:15 AM
(especially funny considering that the vast majority of human beings throughout all time have been theists).

While I certainly don't agree with firstfloor in this matter, I fail to see how this is relevant. The lumping of theists together implies that they somehow stand unified against atheism, when the truth is that they stand against each other just as much or more given the huge variety of supernatural beliefs that have existed.

Carrikature
04-23-2014, 07:16 AM
Fair enough

But if Mike Licona is presenting evidence that the Resurrection was a valid historical event then it is not just a religious discussion.

I think the only real issue here is funding. The article linked said the cost was ~$2,000. Can the organization not afford this on their own? That seems a paltry price to pay to shut up dissenters, especially since the event seems to be a presentation primarily for/to the organization itself.

HOWEVER

I'd be willing to bet more money has been spent on other questionable events in sufficient quantity to consider this whole issue a pointless fuss.

Sparko
04-23-2014, 07:45 AM
Yes. He's not a philosopher, and philosophy is where that kind of talk belongs, so I don't think it would have any scholastic value.

Religion is a philosophy.

Teallaura
04-23-2014, 07:59 AM
While I certainly don't agree with firstfloor in this matter, I fail to see how this is relevant. The lumping of theists together implies that they somehow stand unified against atheism, when the truth is that they stand against each other just as much or more given the huge variety of supernatural beliefs that have existed.

You missed his point - if the majority of people have been theists it is more reasonable to assume that legitimate debate can be had than to assume (as FF did) that there is no debate. Doesn't prove the thesis - does prove that there is a valid counterpoint (unless you presume the majority of humanity to be irrational which is itself irrational).

Psychic Missile
04-23-2014, 03:57 PM
Religion is a philosophy.

I don't understand what you mean by this reply. Was something I said incorrect?

Raphael
04-23-2014, 04:07 PM
Religion is a philosophy.

I think PM was talking about Dawkins not being a philosopher and how his book on the God Delusion is philosophy and it doesn't offer any scholastic value in him presenting a lecture on it.

Sparko
04-24-2014, 05:47 AM
I think PM was talking about Dawkins not being a philosopher and how his book on the God Delusion is philosophy and it doesn't offer any scholastic value in him presenting a lecture on it.

sounded like he was saying that there is no place in lectures about philosophy on colleges.

KingsGambit
04-24-2014, 06:08 AM
He said "He's not a philosopher, and philosophy is where that kind of talk belongs, so I don't think it would have any scholastic value." This seems to me like he's saying that only philosophers should be giving lectures on philosophy subject, not that philosophy isn't a legitimate subject. This seems like a reasonable point to me.

Psychic Missile
04-24-2014, 05:25 PM
He said "He's not a philosopher, and philosophy is where that kind of talk belongs, so I don't think it would have any scholastic value." This seems to me like he's saying that only philosophers should be giving lectures on philosophy subject, not that philosophy isn't a legitimate subject. This seems like a reasonable point to me.

Yeah. An appropriate avenue for an academic lecture on atheism would be philosophy. There's a huge difference between Richard Dawkins and, say, Simon Blackburn.

Sparko
04-25-2014, 05:36 AM
Yeah. An appropriate avenue for an academic lecture on atheism would be philosophy. There's a huge difference between Richard Dawkins and, say, Simon Blackburn.

OK sorry I misunderstood. Yeah Dawkins is not a philosopher at all. He is actually pretty bad at it in many ways.