A very interesting course and it has given a great knowleddge to me about the concept of science and religion . just amazed and the professors taught this in a very impressive way . very nyccc .
Fine course, nice references for further reading, clear and nice instructors. Only two where a little odd: Statis Psillos, talking too fast, and Conor Cunningham, a bit too theatrical.
par Joy S•
Interesting stuff. Part of a series that used to be on mega-difficult, hard to unerstand course. The splitting up is a good thing.
par Amitava D•
Expectation on this course was higher on the face of the title.
par Florinda I•
Somewhat interesting, but I found the last module, which compares evolution through natural selection to young earth creationism, to have deliberately chosen a straw man so that it could be knocked down. There are far more defensible forms of intelligent design than young earth creationism. I was offended by the module.
par Craig S•
If you are a person of faith troubled by science and particularly the theory of evolution, this course will give you comfort. If you believe there is no God, this course offers nothing that might change your mind. If your interest is how religious apologists shape an argument for the transcendent, you will be satisfied.
par Steve L•
Some interesting ideas. Unfortunately some of the presentation was so poor that it was impossible to work out what points, if any, were being presented. And for a course called "Science and Philosophy" there was far too much religious and/or anti-science content.
The lectures were not very effective. Some were personal ideas of the processor contradicting to actual facts.. Compared to several other courses I have taken, this one definitely had a lot missing!
par William Z•
Highly variable quality of lecturers. Some were quite good, many were just spouting quotes, personal beliefs without much evidence or support.
Mostly disappointing. I found only one week interesting and non-biased.
par Elena O•
Boring and basic. Not much learning
par Pedro A F•
Too long for its content.
par Daniel S R•
I was looking forward to an objective course in which the intersection of philosophy, science and religion was explained properly from an academic standpoint of view. However, when I saw that the John Templeton Foundation was involved in the production of the course, my expectations lowered exponentially.
They rocketed to the ground, however, when I saw how several lectures were biased towards treating scientific rigor as “fundamentalism” and when their religious ideas merged in an obscene and weird mixture with post modernism and critical theories to treat the scientific inquiry and knowledge with a relativistic approach. Only an ignorant religious fundamentalist would mistake the scientific inquiry with “naturalist fundamentalism” and misunderstand scientific discovery as an equal in a pseudo-intellectual war with religion, which the latter lost long time ago, rendering it obsolete.
I have no problem with considering the religious hypothesis and to examine them under the unbiased and objective glass of the scientific method. However once said hypothesis they are the subject of the scientific method they lose miserably, simply because they are based on faith and dogma.
This course is a shame. The only thing it misses for being an absolute joke is to have Ken Ham as a guest “scientist” guest. It is nothing more but a pathetic, uncovered attempt from creationist frauds to promote their ill-bred epistemologies.
par Ralph S•
This is a course about Christianity and Science, not religion and Science. The basis of all the evidence given for religion is from a christian point of view and conducted from a defensive angle against science. I would not recommend this as a course that is honest or transparent in its approach, and is instead a defence of christianity and to some degree abrahamic religions. It completely neglects and schools of though regarding Hinduism, Buddhism or the vast swath of pagan, local and tribal religions. I fact there is not mention of religions own challenge to "Creationism" for example. Extreamlly disappointing course, I would not recommend this to anyone seeking truth with an open mind.
par Sarah P•
Parts of this course are thought-provoking, but as others have pointed out, it suffers from a lack of balance - scientific concepts are discussed at length without input from practicing experts in the relevant fields, and while some lip service is paid to other faiths, Christianity is heavily concentrated on without much consideration of how other religions might interface with philosophy and science. This course has so much potential, but students should be aware that it is largely funded by a religious studies foundation and this bias is evident in the course material. Not what I would expect of a university endorsed course.
par Philip M•
This course is clearly signposted as being supported by the Templeton Foundation and it shows. The course is short in terms of length and weak in the terms of developing ideas. The designers do not seem to understand properly what science is and what scientists do. This is particularly evident in the final week, an incoherent ramble. The course strengthens my positive opinions of Feynman's view of the philosophy of science.
In general. I enjoy Edinburgh University's Coursera courses, but I shall be wary of any of a similar ilk and certainly won't buy the certificate this time.
par Tãrún K•
The first week of the course about relativism was really interesting. The same can be said about the second week as well with Dr Murray describing about the relationship between science and religion. However the same cannot be said about the fourth week. It was clearly biased towards creationism. I took this course and was looking forward to see how science and religion can co-exist, however in the fourth week there is a clear misinterpretation of science, and most of the content in this week was about "evolutionists vs creationists" rather than "Evolution vs creationism".
par Matthew K•
I have always been appreciative of free courses that are provided by universities, but this course is clearly biased. The sophistry present in the final module is particularly dishonest. A university is meant to teach the whole story, and have a truthful account of facts. I am deeply disappointed that so much fallacious content could be distributed to individuals, on the pretext of unbiased learning. This course clearly has an agenda. I hope those who take it think critically about the subject matter and do their best to weed out what is reasonable and what is not.
par Yair R•
The course poorly understands the scientific method, and its main effort is to wield unconvincing critiques of science so as to elevate the status of religion in general and Creationism in particular. The last set of lectures is also just badly executed, a confusing meandering talk that amounts to nothing. The course did have a few bright points, like the second series of lectures explaining varieties of naturalism, but overall the course was just bad. Avoid this course, you can learn much more from other sources.
par Deleted A•
In my opinion this is a course that is attempting to establish religion and theology (abrahamic based religions of course) as methodologies on par with science for determining truth about reality. When creationism was discussed strangely there were no mentions of other competing creation myths such as hindu myths, norse myths or aboriginal ones. Surely they are just as valid for discussion
par Ian L•
I was disappointed in this course. It starts with false premises about science and seems to have a hidden agenda regarding creationism and intelligent design. I was expecting it to be about science and philosophy. Poor quality of speakers and content.
par Alexander W•
Disappointed by the complete and apparent academic bias presented here. Utter lack of scientific knowledge and favoritism to only one religion by some of the professors. Very dishonest. This university should be ashamed.
par Jared E•
No substance. This is all very low level stuff. I can't say that there is actually any engagement between science and philosophy here. Let's talk a bit about nested structures next time. Mmkay.
par Bucur B•
It is a poor propaganda for religious. It even claims that creationism should be regarded as a viable alternative to evolution!
par Douglas R A d O•
The course misrepresents the scientific knowledge and makes religious proselytism.
par Jennifer F•
it's like listening to trump talk about science if he used big words.