Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

[paarsurrey]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

 

[Shad]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

Irrelevant. If historians can show religious claims of history are fabricated there is nothing the religion can do but accept it or bury their heads in the sand. Evidence trumps faith and mythology.

Hypothetical Religion I just created. My religion believes World War 2 never happened, it was a mass hallucination, the people that died just starved to death during the hallucination..... My religions view is irrational given the massive amount of evidence for World War 2. My religions view of history is wrong thus historians can express justified and fact based opinions when it comes to religion and it's beliefs.

 

[fantome profane]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

The religious opinion of a scientist does not have any added value because that person is a scientist (or historian or plumber or whatever). But nor does it have less value because that person is a scientist. A scientist is a person, just like you are, and they have a right to their opinion on religious topics, just as you do. You seem to be saying that because they have some level of expertise in one area that means that their opinions in other areas have no value. Do your opinions have value?

 

[Lyndon]

I think you right surrey, Being an expert in one field does not make you an expert or authority in another, Ben Carson is a good case in point.

 

[Shad]

I think you right surrey, Being an expert in one field does not make you an expert or authority in another, Ben Carson is a good case in point.

Ben Carson goes against evidence within his own field and medicine in general hence his views are against the consensus of his peers. When it comes to religion, it uses different methodology when it comes to it's claims which science does not accept at all. It is not the same thing. His religious bias forces him to reject his own field's views.

 

[Shad]

The religious opinion of a scientist does not have any added value because that person is a scientist (or historian or plumber or whatever). But nor does it have less value because that person is a scientist. A scientist is a person, just like you are, and they have a right to their opinion on religious topics, just as you do. You seem to be saying that because they have some level of expertise in one area that means that their opinions in other areas have no value. Do your opinions have value?

More so there are religious experts, theologians. Now if the "scientist" is a layman when it comes to religion then no layman's view of religion is of value which includes the OP and paarsurrey. Kinda shot himself in the foot there. I could also point out the massive disagreement of all religious theologian from various religions to show that each is an expert of a specific religion. More so that there is barely any agreement within the field not even the number of Gods.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

More so there are religious experts, theologians. Now if the "scientist" is a layman when it comes to religion then no layman's view of religion is of view which includes the OP and paarsurrey. Kinda shot himself in the foot there.

And there it is. Too bad I can't like your post more than once.

 

[Shad]

And there it is. Too bad I can't like your post more than once.

The OP is just a thinly veiled attempt to keep religions immune to any criticism regardless of a religion's claim, as per my hypothetical example.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The OP is just a thinly veiled attempt to keep religions immune to any criticism regardless of a religion's claim, as per my hypothetical example.

Not to mention he doesn't like the fact that the work of historians has shown his claim that 'Islam didn't spread by the sword' to be wrong.

 

[Jumi]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.

When claims fall into their field, they're still specialists.

 

[fantome profane]

More so there are religious experts, theologians. Now if the "scientist" is a layman when it comes to religion then no layman's view of religion is of view which includes the OP and paarsurrey. Kinda shot himself in the foot there.

There are experts in the history of religion, or in the practice of religion, or experts in textural analysis of scripture. But I am not convinced that there is any such thing as an expert on "God", or on "spirituality" or the "soul" or anything like that. So the opinion of a scientist on those topics is as relevant as that of a priest, or monk, or pope.

 

[Nietzsche]

Not to mention he doesn't like the fact that the work of historians has shown his claim that 'Islam didn't spread by the sword' to be wrong.

Yeah. He's not very happy with Basic European, Levant, Persian & Sub-Continent History.

 

[Skwim]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

Hey, there are religious people who are specialists in their field but are also quacks in science, Ken Ham for one,

therefore, their opinion about science matters have no value..


There are also religious people who are specialists in their field but are also quacks in religion, Jim Bakker for one,

​

therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.

 

[Revoltingest]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

The hypothetical premise, does not support the unqualified conclusion.

Example of this technique.....
Surgeons might be impersonators, therefore their opinions about medicine have no value.
Reductio ad absurdum.
(That's twice I've used that today.)

Instead, if a scientist makes a poor argument about religion, debunk that particular argument.

 

[Shad]

There are experts in the history of religion, or in the practice of religion, or experts in textural analysis of scripture. But I am not convinced that there is any such thing as an expert on "God", or on "spirituality" or the "soul" or anything like that. So the opinion of a scientist on those topics is a relevant as that of a priest, or monk, or pope.

Religion can not be divorced from the contents of it's claims. Religions are never just about God but about events, people, actions ,etc. When any religion makes specific claims which are part of the general "god" talk then experts within these field express opinions as experts of said field. Keep in mind many religions and their scriptures do provide details of said Gods, reasons for their acts, etc. Many religion claim to be the exclusive truth thus experts of various religious fields are experts of the true idea of God rather than a false one. It depends on the context at hand. However the context was not soul but that of historians as a specific. Hence the OP was attempting to say historians that hold a view counter to religious views in regards to history have no value. However since history follows a superior methodology than any religion it is the historian's view which is of value when it comes to history, not the religion. As per my hypothetical example. I could easily claim my religious view is is based upon a act of God, the hallucination, thus I providing details about my God. However since this detail is based on a historical error my religion view is questionable and whatever claims to truth I attach to it

 

[George-ananda]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

Some truth to that. People focus too much on scientists' opinions about God and religion/spirituality.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

So you're agreeing that religious specialists know sweet bugger all about science or history?

 

[ScottySatan]

Surgeons don't know anything about science.

 

[Skwim]

Some truth to that. People focus too much on scientists' opinions about God and religion/spirituality.

Gotta ask, what scientists' opinions re. god etc, are people focusing on too much? And, are these opinions based on science, or are they simply the opinions of scientists, like the opinions of bankers or wheat farmers?

 

[Sunstone]

Scientists (or Historians ) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion, therefore, their opinion about religious matters have no value.
Regards

An historian of religion, a scientist working in the field of the science of religion, those would be two people whose opinions I'd tend to value.