A friend of mine decided to take his required Logic class through a school other than Purdue for various time-related reasons. It was offered at a Christian school, and he’s an atheist. But that wasn’t the most interesting part: It frequently used supernatural Christian ideas as examples in class. And I mean proving them to be true, not debunking them. Yeah, excellent use of logic.
While we took a bit of glee out of his frequent brain-explosions during the semester, he was nice enough to share more information about the class now that his grade is safe. You can see a whole pdf of the class syllabus here.
Attached is the syllabus from my silly Philosophy class. You can read the introduction, its pretty funny. The rest of the course is boring except for Lesson 13, which is where he uses the resurrection of Jesus Christ to explain how to logically evaluate arguments. It’s [from page 14 to 17]. The whole course is pretty much about indoctrination — I guess by teaching these poor kids everything they know through religious lenses they have no capacity to think without it involving religion. Take away religion — and you’ve taken away their college education.
I took the course through Taylor University. They have this “life together covenant” thing where it outlines behavior for their students, both on and off campus. It’s hilarious. “Prohibited Behaviors: Certain behaviors are expressly prohibited in Scripture and therefore are to be avoided by all members of the community. They include theft, lying, dishonesty, gossip, slander, backbiting, profanity, vulgarity, crude language, sexual immorality (including adultery, homosexual behavior, premarital sex and involvement with pornography in any form), drunkenness, immodesty of dress and occult practice.”
I’m glad they never found me out because I would have been kicked out for doing probably all of them… in one Thursday night!
I’m kind of surprised a public, secular university accepted transfer credit from a place that is obviously more concerned with religious indoctrination than education. Just to give you a taste of their “logical evaluation” of the resurrection of Jesus:
3. We must look at explanations as sets. All of our explanations occur within total world views; every explanation carries many implications and prerequisites. Facts occur in context with other facts. Even if a single idea might be a potentially great explanation for an event, the baggage that comes with the idea might be too great for it to be acceptable.
Here we come, of course, to the liability involved in using the idea of a supernatural resurrection as an explanation for the empty tomb. In order for this explanation to be acceptable, we also need to be clear on the following:
a. there is a God;
b. this God is involved in human history;
c. miracles are possible;
d. miracles are knowable;
e. miracles are knowable from history;
f. the New Testament is historically accurate;
g. it is possible to get reliable information from historical sources;
and various other implications.
These and other issues are all resolvable in a positive way. However, a Christian needs to be aware of the many layers of relevant concerns and not be surprised that simple arguments are oftentimes rejected by non-Christians, not because they cannot explain the data, but because of their implications for a theistic, supernaturalistic world view.
Oh, yeah, none of those things are problems at all. …If you want to read the whole argument, go here and start half way down page 114. I’m sure the document has other gems, but I’m not inclined to sift through it. Post any fun ones you find in the comments!