
Originally Posted by
ReligionOfTheSemites

Originally Posted by
pavlos
Cognitive science is the study of thought. Which is clearly based in the subjective. Studying the thought behind religion does not make religion fact.
Psychology is the scientific study of mental functions and behaviours. Which too is clearly based in the subjective. Studying the mental functions and behaviours behind religion does not make religion fact.
And Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present. Which has nothing really to do with religion other than it's traditions and beliefs in regard to humanity. So again we are back to it being clearly based in the subjective. Religious stories have no objective basis. Studying why people turn to religion does not make religion fact.
Thus it remains faith/belief.
As Astromark was trying to convey. Religious study can never be anything more than supposition, as it has no basis in fact.
Again, you clearly have no idea what these sciences are or what they study.
Oh so Cognitive science, Psychology, And Anthropology are completely different, from there religious versions. Ok I see, I bow to your superior intellect.

Originally Posted by
ReligionOfTheSemites
The anthropology of religion has studied most of the religions first hand by living with different tribes from around the world. W. Robertson Smith wrote The Religion of the Semites which was the first theory that stated that Christianity evolved from earlier religions (written in the 1800's).Today, Pascal Boyer is trying to understand how religious beliefs are created in the mind and how they are exchanged cognitively. Other topics in anthropology would be evolution of religions, how religions begin from a biological point of view and what religion is. Many of these topics would be of great interest to an intelligent non-believer.
Why! knowing why a person is gullible, is only really worthy in psychiatry. I'd rather just stick with the sciences of Psychology, Anthropology, and Cognitive science, adding religious gullibility to it does not do the science any justice.

Originally Posted by
ReligionOfTheSemites
Cognitive science of religion (which Pascal Boyer is a main contributor) understands the cognitive mechanisms that create religion and shows how religious belief is created in the mind.
Wow! That is so similar to Cognitive science. Are you sure they're not related?

Originally Posted by
ReligionOfTheSemites
I think your assumption is that these sciences I refer to are religious adherents trying to prove religion(s) true but, like I said, try to actually look it up before passing judgement.
And there I thought that Cognitive science, Psychology, And Anthropology were related science.
How could I be so wrong!
I'm glad your here, I'd be going through my life with the completely wrong information. Thanks.
In closing though I'll repeat "As Astromark was trying to convey. Religious study can never be anything more than supposition, as it has no basis in fact." So it matters not what science you use to study it. You will never be able to make it anything more than a belief.
So you condemning Astromark was unjust, as you make the statement several times that religion, is nothing more than of the mind, a belief.
It isn't really relevant why it's past on or adhered too.
Do they have a study called the cognitive science of the football fan? Or the cognitive science of the republican?
Why does religion get the science label?
Has anybody gone around studying most football fans first hand by living with different teams from around the world? Wouldn't that be equally important?