Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whether the quest is to prove something or know what is true, would you rather turn to 12 people who suggest you consult the stars or 12 people who are required to consider only the facts as best they can be proven?
For quests to prove something is true, I would be happy to consult experts in any particular field. Why would a chemist be an expert about truths in literature? Why would a sociologist be more of an expert about truths in physics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
The study of religion "by those steeped in it" is highly dubious to me unless the person doing the study is actually studying for purpose of determining the truth, and doing so in an objective intelligent manner.
I feel the same way about the study by those outside the religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
If instead, the "study" is to feel better about one self or feel better in general or for other social/emotional purposes, then this is not the sort of "study" most people would consider "scholarly."
And yet, that's how I see much of the "academic" study of religion -- driven by an agenda to debunk and therefore validate the individual's a priori lack of belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Scholarly describes serious academic study, not religious study.
That's already a biased position to take, deciding that religious study is not academic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Studying one's own religion, for the sake of seeking truth anyway, is not what someone of serious study would exactly consider objective learning. More like confirmation bias to the ultimate degree.
This is another biased statement, and one that can be flipped on its head and applied to those studying religion from outside the system. If they begin with a rejection of the validity of the system, all "study" will be designed to support that "truth."
You are equating methods of explaining and understanding subjective experiences or unknowable facts with evidence based medical practices? I can't follow you there.
I've got a BBQ to worry about, so I've got to sign off here, but before I do, thanks for your thoughtful responses! Real quick like, let me again see if I can do better...
I am comparing comparing what is study, research and professional expertise with the study of religion. Perhaps analogies are hurting more than helping here.
Yes, and? How is this in conflict with anything? By the way, other definitions include, "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject", "knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding" and " knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method".
I already answered where the conflict lies...
Yes, of course, study can be about anything. There are people who study Hollywood movies as if it were a religion. Knowledge of a particular subject versus knowledge of what is truth that science seeks to reveal is my focus here. Truth.
The study of religion does not apply any methodology anything close to that of science to determine the truth as far as I know. Are you aware of any such methodology when it comes to the study of religion?
Can the study of religion be considered objective? Especially when someone already follows that religion?
I've got a BBQ to worry about, so I've got to sign off here, but before I do, thanks for your thoughtful responses! Real quick like, let me again see if I can do better...
I am comparing comparing what is study, research and professional expertise with the study of religion. Perhaps analogies are hurting more than helping here.
But why is the study of religion not composed of study, research and professional expertise?
Picking a definition or understanding of a word is as much an act of faith as anything else.
Striving to understand a word or concept or truth, better than before, is far less "an act of faith" and for more a want to learn, obtain knowledge, about what is fact and what is fiction.
Knowledge of a particular subject versus knowledge of what is truth that science seeks to reveal is my focus here. Truth.
The study of religion does not apply any methodology anything close to that of science to determine the truth as far as I know. Are you aware of any such methodology when it comes to the study of religion?
Can the study of religion be considered objective? Especially when someone already follows that religion?
Maybe I'm just unclear as to what you mean by "truth." You seem to put scientific study on top of some food chain of studies instead of just seeing that there are a variety of fields of study and in each one, there is a method and process which is right. The scientific method does not help in the study of literature.
And why would someone's being an adherent preclude him from studying his religion in an objective manner -- but how can we know if the manner for ANYONE is objective? Often it seems that people in academic circles protect themselves by saying "if you came up with conclusions different from mine, your study couldn't have been subjective."
Striving to understand a word or concept or truth, better than before, is far less "an act of faith" and for more a want to learn, obtain knowledge, about what is fact and what is fiction.
Striving to understand the nature of God better than before and wanting to obtain knowledge about what God taught vs. others' fictional accounts of God would then satisfy your definition.
When we pick a definition, we are subject to the agenda of the dictionary writers.
I'm not sure what this means. I have a belief about the origin of the universe -- not the scientific method by which it was effected. And since there is no empirical evidence either way and no testable method, the choice of explanations for that origin is an expression of my belief. Who says that anyone is turning to religion "rather" than science? In Judaism, if one prays for healing, one also goes to a doctor. Trying to see them only as in opposition seems to reflect an agendized presumption.
Hmm...
What is your belief about the origin of the universe, and why do you believe it to be true?
I believe that knowing or accepting what we don't know, can't prove, is just as important a part of being committed to truth -- science -- as knowing/proving what we do know. No one knows the origin of the universe or life for that matter. That's what the lack of empirical evidence means! Lack of empirical evidence is not an invitation to come up with "proofs" about these origins that are nothing of the sort.
What we know or don't know about such things is universally agreed upon all over the world when it comes to what science has been able to teach us. What the various religions teach, on the other hand, is not only in conflict with science but with other religions. Important to think about how and why that is...
Important to note that science stops short of suggesting something is so until it can prove something is so. Religion has no such restraint or even concern apparently!
I don't see praying and going to the doctor as "opposition."
I see one as an emotional personal matter, the other as a practical rational matter. Praying makes people of faith feel better. Wish I could always say the same about going to the doctor...
That's a rather broad question. Often science strives to understand the way the world works (often to control the world or dominate other people).
Ooh, now back up the bus here!
Please give ONE example of a scientist who strives to understand the way the world works in order to control the world or dominate other people. You even go as far as to claim this is "often" the case? From where does that notion come from I wonder...
Perhaps you are mistaking scientists with others who take what science has taught us and use it for purposes of control or domination. Yes? Like the agenda of most religious origins perhaps? Those people are not scientists as far as I know...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
