Hello, I am new here, and don’t want to cause problems but, in the Threads I have read, I notice a lot of the usual Religion bashing and, of course, specifically bashing Christianity. I also see the usual Science VS Religion theme play out.
I am myself getting two degrees, one in the Science of Psychology, and the other in Theology. I also have a great love of History and of Language. I wrote my Masters Thesis on what Religion is and why everyone really has a Religion, including those who say they have no Religion.
Once my old PC is repaired, or if I find the backup, I may post that, if that’s OK. ( and if I can, as it is a bit long.)
But primarily I came here because I like to travel the Internet setting Right what once went wrong with peoples understanding of things, including History or ideas.
This posts I more of an introduction so its not centralised, but I will briefly explain some of the topics I’d like to explore, if I may.
One of the most common problems I’ve noticed in Science Forums though, and the one I will start off on, is that most of the people who Hate Religion and believe in Science instead have never properly studied Religion. I often see people claim that Religion was invented to explain the world before we had Science, for example, or that Religion hinders the advancement of Science and that we must embrace Science for Mankind to progress. This is an idea that emerged in the 19th Century with the Freethought movement and with the then new Progressivism that had taken Hold and is deeply tied to the Whig view of History. Its also rather mistaken. It’s base don a need to invalidate Religion and to establish the new Philosophical model being offered in its place. “Religion” in this context primarily meant Christianity though… just like today. Indeed, most modern Atheist Arguments were cooked up in this era and aren’t really New. Most of those arguments tended to use dubious source material or fabricate claims wholecloth to foster their ideals, and were principally produced as Propaganda. In fact, a lot of the History we know about in Religion, especially Christianity but also sadly Islam now as well is utterly false. This is bad because a lot of what is sued to demonstrate how bad Religion is is rooted in that Historical understanding. So one of the things I want to discuss, in another thread, is the actual History, both of the Religions, and of the Ideas we now hold regarding them. From the Crusades to Galileo to modern Stem Cell Research, its often a confused History that rests at the heart of a complaint.
By understanding the real History, we can move past the false assumptions we have of the Past and reinterpret what we see in the Present. We can also abandon models we now use that rely on Historical Precedents when those Historical events are improperly understood or fallacious.
Another thing I get often is the lack of actual understanding of Religious Ideas and Philosophical terms. A lot of the terms or ideas used in general debates on the Internet or in the Modern World are not really valid. For example, a lot of Atheists call themselves “Rationalists” today, to highlight their live of Reason and belief in its Primacy. However, they also promote the idea that Scientific Empiricism is the only way we can know our world. The problem with this is that Rationalism is a specific Philosophical Term that has a specific meaning, and Rationalism is actually opposed to Empiricism.
Or look at ideas about God, the Soul, Angels, and Miracles. Look at Salvation, or Heaven and Hell, or Moral Dictums. A lot of the Philosophical concepts in Religion, and the Theological concepts, are simply not well understood and the advocate of Science over Religion often blasts Religion for an absurd concept that exists only in the writings of other Atheists he got his ideas from. Its quiet frequently a Strawman.
However, I’ve been in discussion like this before where I am told that I’m redefining terms or inventing my own terms, and thus my arguments are invalid. I find this rather problematic for two reasons. Even if it’s True that I came up with new definitions for words and new ideas concerning them, that doesn’t invalidate what I’ve said or how I interpret the world. Further, most of what I say is base don Classical Theological Thought, so its not all Made up by me.
I hope therefore I have a place on this forum. I would like to discuss some of these matters I see frequently if I may.
I am myself getting two degrees, one in the Science of Psychology, and the other in Theology. I also have a great love of History and of Language. I wrote my Masters Thesis on what Religion is and why everyone really has a Religion, including those who say they have no Religion.
Once my old PC is repaired, or if I find the backup, I may post that, if that’s OK. ( and if I can, as it is a bit long.)
But primarily I came here because I like to travel the Internet setting Right what once went wrong with peoples understanding of things, including History or ideas.
This posts I more of an introduction so its not centralised, but I will briefly explain some of the topics I’d like to explore, if I may.
One of the most common problems I’ve noticed in Science Forums though, and the one I will start off on, is that most of the people who Hate Religion and believe in Science instead have never properly studied Religion. I often see people claim that Religion was invented to explain the world before we had Science, for example, or that Religion hinders the advancement of Science and that we must embrace Science for Mankind to progress. This is an idea that emerged in the 19th Century with the Freethought movement and with the then new Progressivism that had taken Hold and is deeply tied to the Whig view of History. Its also rather mistaken. It’s base don a need to invalidate Religion and to establish the new Philosophical model being offered in its place. “Religion” in this context primarily meant Christianity though… just like today. Indeed, most modern Atheist Arguments were cooked up in this era and aren’t really New. Most of those arguments tended to use dubious source material or fabricate claims wholecloth to foster their ideals, and were principally produced as Propaganda. In fact, a lot of the History we know about in Religion, especially Christianity but also sadly Islam now as well is utterly false. This is bad because a lot of what is sued to demonstrate how bad Religion is is rooted in that Historical understanding. So one of the things I want to discuss, in another thread, is the actual History, both of the Religions, and of the Ideas we now hold regarding them. From the Crusades to Galileo to modern Stem Cell Research, its often a confused History that rests at the heart of a complaint.
By understanding the real History, we can move past the false assumptions we have of the Past and reinterpret what we see in the Present. We can also abandon models we now use that rely on Historical Precedents when those Historical events are improperly understood or fallacious.
Another thing I get often is the lack of actual understanding of Religious Ideas and Philosophical terms. A lot of the terms or ideas used in general debates on the Internet or in the Modern World are not really valid. For example, a lot of Atheists call themselves “Rationalists” today, to highlight their live of Reason and belief in its Primacy. However, they also promote the idea that Scientific Empiricism is the only way we can know our world. The problem with this is that Rationalism is a specific Philosophical Term that has a specific meaning, and Rationalism is actually opposed to Empiricism.
Or look at ideas about God, the Soul, Angels, and Miracles. Look at Salvation, or Heaven and Hell, or Moral Dictums. A lot of the Philosophical concepts in Religion, and the Theological concepts, are simply not well understood and the advocate of Science over Religion often blasts Religion for an absurd concept that exists only in the writings of other Atheists he got his ideas from. Its quiet frequently a Strawman.
However, I’ve been in discussion like this before where I am told that I’m redefining terms or inventing my own terms, and thus my arguments are invalid. I find this rather problematic for two reasons. Even if it’s True that I came up with new definitions for words and new ideas concerning them, that doesn’t invalidate what I’ve said or how I interpret the world. Further, most of what I say is base don Classical Theological Thought, so its not all Made up by me.
I hope therefore I have a place on this forum. I would like to discuss some of these matters I see frequently if I may.
