At wor
At work trying to avoid banana reasoningUntil the 17th and 18th century, Science and Religion were not separate. It was only at the end of the 19th Century that the idea of a conflict between Science and Religion became widespread. The conflict thesis has been pushed back as a very selective view of the history of science and religion by focusing on Darwin and Galileo. In so far Religion and Science both seek truth and knowledge there is a degree of compatibility between them, but that is not a view of fundamentalists on both sides of the debate.
I think the way in which we simply accept ideas about Truth and Knowledge from either Science or Religion often does lead to a kind of "junk" on religious forums. If we were more able or willing to accept not everyone agrees on the same definition of truth or method of having knowledge, discussions might be easier because we could understand that there is no one definition of truth, knowledge, logic, etc that everyone accepts. It is a pretty demanding thing to do though but it might help.
I don't believe all methods have equal value though as I favour science over religion, but when science loses sight of its historical roots in philosophy and religion, it makes the sectarian debate over faith versus facts a lot more intense. when we take the ideas of the scientific method as self-evident, we pull our hair out wondering how on earth someone can sincerely believe this:
Theology is a subset of philosophy related to the study of our conceptions of truth and reality as they specifically relate to a "god"- centered existence.
To accuse any branch of philosophy of being "junk philosophy" is somewhat redundant, in that it's part of the philosophical endeavor to be antagonistically framed and examined by other philosophers. And the same would apply to the theological subset of philosophy.
Oh its arguing who is better at air guitar!!!! Like I said it's nonsensical.Theology is a subset of philosophy related to the study of our conceptions of truth and reality as they specifically relate to a "god"- centered existence.
To accuse any branch of philosophy of being "junk philosophy" is somewhat redundant, in that it's part of the philosophical endeavor to be antagonistically framed and examined by other philosophers. And the same would apply to the theological subset of philosophy.