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.
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.
By 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.
By 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".
By 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.
By 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.
By 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
By 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.
By 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.
By 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.
By Bucur B•
It is a poor propaganda for religious. It even claims that creationism should be regarded as a viable alternative to evolution!
By Douglas R A d O•
The course misrepresents the scientific knowledge and makes religious proselytism.
By Jennifer F•
it's like listening to trump talk about science if he used big words.