This is for satire and entertainment purposes only. It should not be taken as absolute gospel, or truth.
Written by Andrew Dornon
In Southwestern University’s humble attempt to make God seem like some sort of real thing, they brought in scholars of all sorts for a discussion of whether religion and science were compatible or at odds. Some were for God, others against. Some were religious, others weren’t. It was like battle of the bands, but without the bands and with academics, who happen to be a way more exciting bunch in my humble opinion.
On one side, we had the religious. They talked about a bunch of stuff that made religion seem like it had positive attributes. As a collective whole, the arguments just were not very convincing. What’s worse, they completely ignored the pink elephant in the room. You know, the fact that they cannot prove a deity’s existence. So you have a lot of scholarly discussion about basically some vauge reasons why religion and science can be friends, without you know any valid arguments for any higher being’s reality. But hey, who cares, I’m sure some of the believers in the crowd felt better about themselves afterwards. After all, that is probably what Southwestern wanted to do with the Brown Symposium. Just push ancient reasons for the way things are and make modern-day Facebook prophets feel like science has their back.
One would think that those who opposed religion would, you know, come out and acknowledge that the religious can’t prove God even exists. But for the benefit of friendly discourse and long-winded speeches, they did not. The discussion was about how you could apply evolutionary theory to religious progression, which is certainly a valid study of social phenomena. But that wasn’t the point of all this. The point of academic debate is not to foster a friendly environment. If you want that then get a prescription for Prozac and move to the suburbs. The point of academia is to promote truth and the dismantling of outdated and false paradigms, such as racism and sexism. So why not religion? Which combines both of these former discriminatory forces but hides it with so-called divine providence.
The panel discussion was further proof that not one of these scholars had much of a spine. They just sort of batted fairly easy questions around without ever really saying that much. The highlight of the whole thing, I would have to say, was when Christian Lavigne, a French artist, asked the moderator, President Jake Schrum, why there was only one woman that participated in the Symposium. Schrum pretty much got owned and then mumbled something about how it won’t be like that next year. To cut the tension, Dr. Simon Morris of Cambridge University, offered to undergo sex-reassignment surgery if someone would give him fifty thousand dollars. Needless to say, the joke at the expense of transgendered people everywhere only added to the excruciating awkwardness expressed on Schrum’s face.
So yeah, the Symposium really provided no answers on religion or science. Although it did place the President of this university in a fairly humorous situation, so I guess it was worth it.