Mike Licona lecture questioned at college

[Manwë Súlimo]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

Religion is a philosophy.

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

[Raphael]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.