My Introductional Post.

[Yazata]

The forum is about science.

It's in the science hierarchy, but it's entitled 'comparative religion'. I take it that it's the appropriate place for more academic discussion of religion, particularly of religiosity in general, religious ideas historically and cross-culturally, and so on. Of course in real life, this forum doesn't seem to be any different than the religion forum down next to philosophy in terms of its content.

If Zav really has studied religion or theology or whatever he said it was in a university, then he might actually prove be a useful addition to this forum, provided of course that he's able to dial back his attitude a little.

 

[ZAV]

Mr. Taylor-

If by "academics" you mean "theologians", I think your statements would look less like an obvious troll and more like a sincere invitation to debate if you posted them on a forum that is actually about theology, rather than one which isn't.

If you chose to post on a science forum to discuss science, that's fine, but nothing you've said so far supports that.

If, as you expediently claim, you are familiar with the fundamental ideas of the scientific method, you will already know that it doesn't make any difference how well considered an explanation is if the basic assumption is one that doesn't have any evidence to support it whatsoever.

With science you should be able to trace back each fact to others which have all been tested carefully. If at any point you come to a bit that says "and then a god does X with his magic powers", it cannot properly be called science, and is an unwelcome and inappropriate intrusion into scientific discussions.

Doesn’t this Assume that Theology never looks art Hard evidence? One of the problems I see in these discussions online is that often the Atheist will claim that no Religious arguments ever look at Evidence. That is, of course, wrong. Yaz may say I have an attitude problem, but I find this sort of attitude far more problematic. Why should I assume theologians never base their considerations on actual evidence that can be demonstrated? More importantly, why do you assume this is True?

I can show you plenty of Theologians who actually incorporate hard evidence with their Claims, which is why the Atheist claims we hear on the net of “no evidence is ever used” is as false as the flat earth arguments.

I know its part of the whole Mythology that Religion is faith based, not evidence based, but that mythology is often just a load of hooey.

 

[spidergoat]

Yeah, they do like to use science when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't. Mostly, there might be some piece of evidence that they use to build up an argument that is really just pseudoscience, for instance using the patterns in sandstone to conclude that it was the product of a great flood.

 

[ZAV]

Spider-

Then it should be no problem to show the physical effects of angels on the material world. And you might want to explain where they live and what they are anyway.

Actually my stated purpose is to clear up the concepts, not to argue directly for or against. As I said I am here for an experiment of my own. I just want to see what introduction of actual Theological ideas do to a forum like this, or more properly how they are responded to. I thus really don’t have to answer those questions.

I'm sure you could, but it wouldn't really apply, would it? There isn't a body of arcane knowledge that atheists insist you know before you can dismiss atheism.

It would apply, simply because Atheism, as the word is typically used, goes beyond the dictionary definition and into a set of beliefs about the world, not just an opinion on the existence of gods. Functionally, the word “Atheism” actually describes an entire body of beliefs that rest on the tenets of the Enlightenment of the 18th Century as interpreted by 19th Century Freethinkers ( self described of course), not just no belief in gods. EG, when Atheists way they are Atheists so believe in Science and Religion over Faith, they take Atheism beyond not believing in gods and into believing in Science and Reason.

Richard Dawkins conflates Atheism and Reason with Secular Humanism, which means the tenets of Humanism as outlined in the Manifestos.

What it means to be an Atheist s often far more about what you do believe than what you don’t, when it’s actually applied.

Then I'm looking forward to your explanation of these because I haven't seen any yet that rely on reliable evidence.

Given that you support Meyers and Dawkins, I would suggest that perhaps this is because you spent too much Time listening to other Atheists refuting Theism and not enough Time reading Actual works by real Theologians.

The image of Theologians as never supporting their work by Evidence, while prevalent in many Atheist Circles is a false one. As with any Academic discipline, the Real World is always taken into consideration.


That’s why I reject the whole modern Atheist mentality these days.

Aren't the intricacies of theology irrelevant? I mean who cares if there are 12 circles of hell or 8, the basic premise is unsupported.

The point is, they aren’t unsupported.

After the hand fully heals I will write my essays and you will begin to see what I mean.

That's a strawman. I don't know if those figures really existed either, but it's irrelevant to their teachings. The teachings exist on their own merits unlike those of Jesus because if he wasn't miraculous he was just another philosopher.

It’s not a Strawman. Jesus’s Historical existence is accepted by Historians and it is because the evidence for his existence is overwhelming. I’ll do an essay on that too if you like; it won’t be the First Time.

Argument from authority?

Argument from Valid Authority is not a Logical fallacy. Obviously if it is the consensus of Historians that something happened based on Historical evidence, differing to the collective Judgement is not inappropriate. While one can challenge a consensus, its foolish to think that a consensus forms around nonexistent evidence.

You cannot be sure about that.

Yes I can.

There were no contemporaneous records of his existence, only secondhand tales.

Which is True of most figures in Antiquity, but the life of Jesus was recorded in living memory of those Evets. Pauls letters, for example, where written about ten years later, with plenty of Witnesses still about. Also, the Gospel of John may have been written by an Eye Witness, as may have Marks. And this assumes the current Theory that Luke and Mathew borrowed from Mark. ( though online, and on this forum, I hear the grating error that all three Gospels borrowed from Mark. Johns is considered independent.)

The entire New Testament corpus with the possible exception of 2 Peter and the Revelation were completed within 40 years of the events, which is far closer in Time than most other contemporary records we possess for most other events. Unlike Modern History, for Antiquity we must reply on that sort of gap and for the era that’s much faster for written records than we should expect.

Josephus is often cited here, but those passages are stylistically different and are consistent with the hypothesis that they are later additions, forgeries intended to give a fake historical context to what was an obscure religious movement until it caught on in Rome.

This is an old cobbler, and disproven by Peter Kirby already. First off, there are two mentions of Jesus in Josephus, only one was ever described as a forgery by anyone, not the second. Further, the quote in Antiquities is not really understood as a forgery by most Historians past or present. Most accept that, while the passage was altered, the original Josephus Text was indeed a mention of Jesus. This is bolstered by the discovery of Aramaic copies that predate our earliest Greek MSS and that possess the passage, though minus the claims that Jesus was definitely the Messiah. The consensus now is that Josephus did indeed write about Jesus, and a later Christian editor simply made the reference more palatable. I’ll cover that in more detail later, but I will say that the idea tht it was a total Forgery is not a well supported one.

I'm not saying he didn't exist for sure, just that those who claim he may not have existed have a good case,

They have a poor case, as to much evidence says he did exist.

just like the claim that he survived to live past 33 and moved to France to retire get married and have a few children.

Actually that one is utterly unsubstantiated and was concocted centuries later. This is not Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and lets not bring up the Da Vinci Code shall we?

Personally, I like to assume there was a person on which the myth was based, because that's usually the case and it doesn't really add anything to the atheist argument to say Jesus didn't exist.

It’s best though to not assume. Jesus, the man, assuredly lived. When I do the essay on him, it’ll assume the idea that he was just a man, but I think you will see why the idea is rejected by History.

 

[ZAV]

Spider-

Yeah, they do like to use science when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't. Mostly, there might be some piece of evidence that they use to build up an argument that is really just pseudoscience, for instance using the patterns in sandstone to conclude that it was the product of a great flood.

This is an example of what I mean. You really haven’t read any serious Theologians and assume by Theologian I mean “Creationist”.

Look mate, when I say that Theologians take Science into consideration, it does no good to fall back on the echo chamber and assume that Religion and Science are incompatible and the Theologians are being selective. All I’m asking is that you consider that perhaps your views on the topic are mistaken and that real Theology is not what you think it is.

 

[ZAV]

Yaz, I think your misjudging me. The way I speak is not really conforntastional. I think its just that this is text and you don;'t hear me. Still, it may just be linguistical misunderstanding.

 

[spidergoat]

Science might be compatible with some theologies, perhaps deism, but not with the common ones like Christianity.

 

[ZAV]

Spider-

Science might be compatible with some theologies, perhaps deism, but not with the common ones like Christianity.

I can thing of two major flaws to this…


1: You set up Deism as a separate Theology to Christianity. But, Christianity is not even a single Theology. There are marked differences between Catholic Theology and Protestant, and distinctions between differing Protestant Teachers. EG, some are Calvinists, others Wesleyan, others Evangelical, and so on.


Another problem is the assumption that Deism is its own distinct Theology and an Alternative to Christianity. This also crops up in the Ubiquitous American Founding Fathers debates on if they were Christians or Deists. The trouble is, Deism is not a total Theology, and it’s a Theological opinion. Deism is also not incompatible with all forms of Christianity, and the Earliest Deists were Christian. It’s not like being a Deist means you can’t be a Christian.


2: Saying Science is incompatible with Christianity highlights a significant point, that a lot of Modern Atheism really just hates Christianity, not Religion in general. This si a cultural carry over from its origins.

That said, your statement is also not correct. Plenty of Christian Theologians are also Scientists, and many Scientists, like Francis Collins, are also Christians. Christian Theology is not really incompatible with Science. The only reason you think so is because the online discussion tend to posit Science VS Christianity, but like believing that most Theologians are Creationists, the idea has nothing to support it.


Christianity is fully compatible with Science, as can be demonstrated by the numerous Churches that run Universities and Science Laboratories that are respected the world over.

 

[spidergoat]

Since you are so familiar with athiest arguments, you should know the one about Christian scientists. They tend to compartmentalize their beliefs so that there is no cross-contamination. The fact that some scientists are Christians doesn't mean that science is fully intellectually compatible with Christianity.

I acknowledge that early Christianity was rather more diverse than modern Christians like to admit, but it's a fact that established Christian theology includes as an essential aspect that God is present in our lives, listens to and answers prayers. He didn't just set things in motion and step back. The deist founding fathers had some real problems with many aspects of Christianity, and couldn't get elected today if they were honest with the public.

 

[The Esotericist]

Love it, love it, love it.

That's about right.

 

[Yazata]

Doesn’t this Assume that Theology never looks art Hard evidence?

What sort of "hard evidence" do theologians look at? What hard evidence is there for trinitarian theology or for Christology, for example?

Historically, Christian theology has distinguished between 'revealed theology' on one hand, and 'natural theology' on the other. Revealed theology is the study of divine revelation, as the Christian church defines it. Natural theology purports to establish truths about "God" based upon rational reflection about the natural world.

One of the problems I see in these discussions online is that often the Atheist will claim that no Religious arguments ever look at Evidence. That is, of course, wrong.

Atheists often question whether natural theology's Christian-inspired conclusions in fact follow from the kind of natural-world evidence that's available to human beings.

Yaz may say I have an attitude problem, but I find this sort of attitude far more problematic.

Don't just try to insult people into submission, Zav.

Illustrate that they are wrong by presenting and discussing some examples of how theologians consider evidence, of the kinds of evidence that they consider, and of the conclusions that they draw from it.

The question still stands though, whether the inevitable resulting argument about Christian natural theology would even belong in an ostensible 'comparative religion' forum, in terms of methodology. It's probably more appropriate for the 'religion' forum in the philosophy hierarchy, in my opinion.

Why should I assume theologians never base their considerations on actual evidence that can be demonstrated? More importantly, why do you assume this is True?

Well, there's a whole set of broad philosophical issues around the question of whether or not natural evidence can ever be evidence of supernatural and/or transcendent things. There are also more specific issues about whether or not particular natural theological arguments are actually successful in demonstrating the things that they purportedly demonstrate.

Even if we accept, simply for the sake of argument, that natural theology indeed works and is conclusively sound, it's still only going to deliver us to a vague set of abstract philosophical functions (a hypothetical first-cause and so on).

Moving beyond these to the more specific faith-claims of Christianity (or whatever theistic religion it is) is going to require something more, which is where revealed theology typically comes in. And a great deal more faith is going to be necessary in order to acept the divine truth of those purported special revelations.

I can show you plenty of Theologians who actually incorporate hard evidence with their Claims, which is why the Atheist claims we hear on the net of “no evidence is ever used” is as false as the flat earth arguments.

Then stop thrashing around like a hooked-fish and actually do something smart. Make a thoughtful and persuasive post.

I know its part of the whole Mythology that Religion is faith based, not evidence based, but that mythology is often just a load of hooey.

I think that the idea that the major theistic religions are largely faith-based is totally accurate.

 

[ZAV]

Spider-

Since you are so familiar with athiest arguments, you should know the one about Christian scientists. They tend to compartmentalize their beliefs so that there is no cross-contamination. The fact that some scientists are Christians doesn't mean that science is fully intellectually compatible with Christianity.

Dawkins created this one, but the Irony is, he has no evidence to back this up. Its entirely based on his A Priori assumption that Religious belief can never be rational and cannot withstand the vigour’s of Science. He has Blind Faith in that proposition, so has to find some explanation for those who are Christian or other sort of Theist and yet Scientists that fits his Paradigm. The argument that a man who is both a Christian and a Scientist must be compartmentalising only exists to serve that Paradigm, and to shield its adherents, like Dawkins or you, from considering that you may be wrong and that Theology may not crumble if ever exposed to the shinning light of Science.


It’s not like Dawkins based this on a years long Longitudinal study, or any study at all, its entirely based upon his own pre-determined prejudices about how he thinks the world works. Prejudices he never questions and believes in with absolute conviction despite evidence to the contrary.

Just because he can rationalise something doesn’t mean what he said is a Valid explanation, and in fact only means he can create cleaver, if not actually intelligent ways to prevent himself from having to reassess his own beliefs.

Why should I take the Compartmentalisation Theory seriously when its not based on any actual evidence itself, and comes from those with their own religious beliefs they seek to blindly defend from all challenges?

I acknowledge that early Christianity was rather more diverse than modern Christians like to admit, but it's a fact that established Christian theology includes as an essential aspect that God is present in our lives, listens to and answers prayers. He didn't just set things in motion and step back.

No its not. Modern Christian Theology is not really narrow, and certainly is not the same as an Evangelical Christian Pamplet.

EG, The Churches of Christ and several other Restoration Churches believe that Miracles no longer occur.

In fact, Cessationism was also common ( But not Universally accepted) in Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism in the late 18th and early 19th Century, and is still a prevalent Theological position amongst many.

Then there are Theologians who say God never worked any direct Miracles at all and always worked via Natural means, or Providence. Heck, there are some Theologians, and some Churches, that Teach that God is Nature.

So, you aren’t entirely correct here are you?


Of course you also use the term “Early Christianity” and discuss America’s Founding Fathers. I have to wonder if you think the 18th Century reflects Early Christianity…

The deist founding fathers

I really hate it when Americans get their own History wrong, and particularly if its motivated by a Cultural need. If you think al of America’s Founding Fathers were Deists, you have not read History. John Adams was not a Deist. Neither was George Washington. Neither was James Madison. Neither was Alexander Hamilton. It’s even debatable of Jefferson was., but for the sake of Argument we’ll accept him as a Deist. That makes Two who were, Jefferson and Paine, the Two Thomas’s, out of the most commonly cited. Of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, few to none were. This includes Benjamin Franklin, who is often on the net called a Deist, but whose life is a bit more complex than that. He had been Raised a Quaker, become a Deist in his late teens or Early 20’s, but had given up Deism by his early to mid 30’s. By the Time the American Revolution began he was not a Deist.


The idea that America’s Founding Fathers were all Deists is like the idea that they were all Christian and thus agreed with modern Evangelicals, a nice useful way to drape a modern cultural and political movement in the Authority of respected men of the Past who were nothing at all like either camp.

By the way, I’m a bloody Tory, so I am not just trying to defend a delusion so I can keep Childhood Heroes. I think they all were Traitors who should have been Hanged. Then again, I am a Brit.

had some real problems with many aspects of Christianity, and couldn't get elected today if they were honest with the public.

I doubt this is as True as you think it is. I’ve seen a lot of out of context quotations bandied about by Atheist websites that if you look at the Parent text and remove the Atheist glasses don’t support the contention. Just like I’ve seen the same from Evangelical Sites regarding them.

For the most part, America’s Founders were Christians, and tended to be typical for their Time and Place.

 

[ZAV]

What sort of "hard evidence" do theologians look at? What hard evidence is there for trinitarian theology or for Christology, for example?

Historically, Christian theology has distinguished between 'revealed theology' on one hand, and 'natural theology' on the other. Revealed theology is the study of divine revelation, as the Christian church defines it. Natural theology purports to establish truths about "God" based upon rational reflection about the natural world.



Atheists often question whether natural theology's Christian-inspired conclusions in fact follow from the kind of natural-world evidence that's available to human beings.



Don't just try to insult people into submission, Zav.

Illustrate that they are wrong by presenting and discussing some examples of how theologians consider evidence, of the kinds of evidence that they consider, and of the conclusions that they draw from it.

The question still stands though, whether the inevitable resulting argument about Christian natural theology would even belong in an ostensible 'comparative religion' forum, in terms of methodology. It's probably more appropriate for the 'religion' forum in the philosophy hierarchy, in my opinion.



Well, there's a whole set of broad philosophical issues around the question of whether or not natural evidence can ever be evidence of supernatural and/or transcendent things. There are also more specific issues about whether or not particular natural theological arguments are actually successful in demonstrating the things that they purportedly demonstrate.

Even if we accept, simply for the sake of argument, that natural theology indeed works and is conclusively sound, it's still only going to deliver us to a vague set of abstract philosophical functions (a hypothetical first-cause and so on).

Moving beyond these to the more specific faith-claims of Christianity (or whatever theistic religion it is) is going to require something more, which is where revealed theology typically comes in. And a great deal more faith is going to be necessary in order to acept the divine truth of those purported special revelations.



Then stop thrashing around like a hooked-fish and actually do something smart. Make a thoughtful and persuasive post.



I think that the idea that the major theistic religions are largely faith-based is totally accurate.

Yaz-


I’m not insulting anyone into submission. However, the Atheists even on this site are often far more hostile than I am. The only reason I seem to have an attitude problem is that I don’t accept it or their claims. However, I’ve been far less insulting than people who openly call others delusional.


I'll address your questions in my ssays, which will be in a couple of weeks as I won't be back due to a business Trip I must take. Tomorrow and perhaps Saturday will be the last Time I visit for two weeks or so.

 

[michael_taylor]

it's entitled 'comparative religion'. I take it that it's the appropriate place for more academic discussion of religion, particularly of religiosity in general, religious ideas historically and cross-culturally, and so on.

It's appropriate for comparing one religion to another as an aspect of anthropology.

I don't agree that it's appropriate for interminable rants re-hashing the same old apologetics ad nauseum.

 

[michael_taylor]

[...]

"Doesn’t this Assume that Theology never looks art Hard evidence?"

Not necessarily, no. It assumes that theology looks at other things as well, which science wouldn't.


"Yaz may say I have an attitude problem, but I find this sort of attitude far more problematic."

That's irrelevant to me. Your attitude can be as convivial and persuasive as the most talented preacher, I don't care even slightly. What I care about (in this context) is whether your statements have a basis in fact.

"I can show you plenty of Theologians who actually incorporate hard evidence with their Claims,"

And I can show you your favorite candy incorporated into a bowl of steaming turd, but I wouldn't expect you to eat it.

"I know its part of the whole Mythology that Religion is faith based, not evidence based, but that mythology is often just a load of hooey."

Do you have evidence that a particular religion is an accurate description of the structure of reality? (This is a rhetorical question; we both know you don't.) Then it requires faith.

Have you read any of the holy books of any religions? Do they actively discourage faith, or declaim any association with it? Have you ever met a single religious person who didn't have faith? (They are rhetorical questions, we both know the answer is no.)

 

[ZAV]

Mr. Taylor-

"Doesn’t this Assume that Theology never looks art Hard evidence?"

Not necessarily, no. It assumes that theology looks at other things as well, which science wouldn't.

At least presumably…

"Yaz may say I have an attitude problem, but I find this sort of attitude far more problematic."

That's irrelevant to me. Your attitude can be as convivial and persuasive as the most talented preacher, I don't care even slightly. What I care about (in this context) is whether your statements have a basis in fact.

I can assure you it does.

"I can show you plenty of Theologians who actually incorporate hard evidence with their Claims,"

And I can show you your favorite candy incorporated into a bowl of steaming turd, but I wouldn't expect you to eat it.

This is the sort of attitude that I FIND OFF PUTTING. I MEAN, REALLY, THIS ONLY SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE UP YOUR MIDN THAT ALL Religion is false and none of it can be rationally supported. As a result, you can’t possibly allow that some Theologians may have a valid argument, and instead think that if any Hard Evidence exists at all, its not the starting point and everything they say aside form it is bunk. Why should I accept that though? Most of the serious Theologians I have read have been very intelligent men who begin with a premise that Starts in Reality, they don’t just add fact and fancy together.

Meanwhile, Atheist writers that have become popular like Dawkins, or even old Favourites like Bertrand Russell, simply don’t use Rational arguments.

"I know its part of the whole Mythology that Religion is faith based, not evidence based, but that mythology is often just a load of hooey."

Do you have evidence that a particular religion is an accurate description of the structure of reality? (This is a rhetorical question; we both know you don't.) Then it requires faith.

1: The idea that Faith is belief without Evidence is another Myth that modern Atheists have bought into, and the distinction between having evidence that proves something, or else believing in it on Faith is a false one.

Faith is not belief without Evidence.

2: All Major world religions address the Real World and I do have evidence ( Which will be presented in a couple of weeks when I come back) that they all at least to an extend accurately reflect Reality. I also argue that they are as accurate at reflecting Reality as modern Secular Humanism.

The idea that Religion can never reflect reality is just another silly one I don’t find particularly useful in discussions.

Have you read any of the holy books of any religions?

I’ve read the Bible, Koran, Babylonian Talmud, segments of the Jerusalem Talmud, Dead Sea Scroll texts not in the Bible, The Veda’s from Hinduism, Buddhist Scripture, Tao, Shinto texts, and even Neo-Pagan. I’ve also read samples of Native American Religious texts and Historical ones like the Egyptian Book Of The Dead and the Poems of Homer or Hesiod. I believe I am better read than you are on the topic.

Do they actively discourage faith, or declaim any association with it?

Of course you mean “Belief without evidence”, which is not really discussed in most of them as the idea that Faith is belief without Evidence is an utterly new one. The problem is, none of the Holy Texts discuss Faith in the same way a Modern Atheist like you would. For example, the Bible may, in English Translations, use the word Faith, but its obvious that you can’t just replace the word Faith with “Belief without evidence” and make sense of what the Author is saying.

None of the Religions in the past actually advocated the type of Faith you or many modern Atheists condemn.

Have you ever met a single religious person who didn't have faith? (They are rhetorical questions, we both know the answer is no.)

It depends on what you mean by both “Religious Person” and “Faith”.

I’d say that you are a Religious Person who has Faith. The idea that Atheism is the opposite of Religion is not correct, and the idea that Atheists never believe withotu evidence in things is equally dubious.

 

[Yazata]

[Religious scientists] tend to compartmentalize their beliefs so that there is no cross-contamination. The fact that some scientists are Christians doesn't mean that science is fully intellectually compatible with Christianity.

Dawkins created this one, but the Irony is, he has no evidence to back this up.

Dawkins what?? That's foolishness, Zav. Perhaps you first encountered the idea while reading Dawkins, but people were making that observation long before he ever came along.

Spidergoat is right. Religious scientists, like artistic scientists and bungee-jumping scientists, tend to compartmentalize their thinking and behavior.

When they are in the lab, they pursue narrow and highly technical research projects employing the concepts and methods relevant to their research problem. They talk the language of their specialties with their collaborators and they think in those terms.

When they are at church or in the temple, they practice their devotions or their prayers or their meditations, employing the concepts and methods derived from their religious tradition. They talk the language of that tradition with their fellow religionists and think in those terms.

While there are certainly a few individual exceptions, what they don't typically do is devote a whole lot of thought to bringing these widely divergent parts of their lives and their thinking together and weaving some larger philosophical theory around them in hopes of binding everything into one.

We see exactly the same kind of thing happening when (as often happens) scientists are interested in and dabble in the creative arts. They do science in the lab, and then paint or play their musical instrument at night or on the weekend. When they are being arty, they will typically be hanging around with an entirely different crowd and be talking and thinking in a very different vocabulary.

An evangelical Christian accountant is going to be thinking and working in terms of generally accepted accounting principles when he's down at his financial firm. When he's at church, he's probably not going to be thinking about accounting at all.

 

[michael_taylor]

I can assure you it does.

And that's my whole point. You can assure all you want, but if you don't say what those facts are, or if you present something which isn't a fact and pretend it is, your assurances are no use to me.

Faith is not belief without Evidence.

So what is the new and improved definition of the word "faith" that you're promoting?

 

[Yazata]

It's appropriate for comparing one religion to another as an aspect of anthropology.

I agree with that. (I'm kind of skeptical about whether comparative religion is best pursued in an anthropological mode though. But that's a quibble.)

I don't agree that it's appropriate for interminable rants re-hashing the same old apologetics ad nauseum.

Right, definitely. I agree with that 100%.

Part of the problem is that few participants on Sciforums have done very much reading or have much educational background in the broader study of religion. Given what he's said about his education, I'd kind of initially hoped that Zav could dial himself back and turn himself a valuable contributor to more enlightening discussions. But seeing how things are steadily devolving, I don't think that's very likely.

 

[wynn]

While there are certainly a few individual exceptions, what they don't typically do is devote a whole lot of thought to bringing these widely divergent parts of their lives and their thinking together and weaving some larger philosophical theory around them in hopes of binding everything into one.

At least some people do that, as eventually, there arises the need to see one's whole life as one, and not chopped up into times.

Some Buddhist books that work on this premise:

Work as a Spiritual Practice: A Practical Buddhist Approach to Inner Growth and Satisfaction on the Job

Awake at Work: 35 Practical Buddhist Principles for Discovering Clarity and Balance in the Midst of Work's Chaos

I have both of them, and I bought them specifically to help me make sense of work.