First incorrect guess. But not a bad one, in that I do know a bit about theology.Belinda wrote:The sort of ideas you do know are apologetics for literal interpretations and lead me to think that you are a preacher by profession.
Thank you. Very kind.You are literate and articulate.
Which "religion"?I am sorry that preachers by profession have to accommodate the lowest common denominator of imagination among their flocks. Religion has a good future but only if religionists modernise and face up realistically to the problems of the future of life on Earth.
You skeptics never specify. It's as if none of you have any idea that "religions" aren't a real thing, but a dismissive collective noun invented by secularists. A little history or etymology would sure help there. Harrison's recent "The Territories of Science and Religion" would be a good place to start.
And I have no "flock." Nor, as I say, have I that "profession."
"Social science" is an oxymoron. To deal with the "social" is to have to depart scientific methods to a certain degree. How far that variance is depends on the particular "social discipline" under consideration.Your silly and facile denigrations of social sciences don't do you credit.
I don't denigrate the social sciences in general. But I also don't mistake them for "hard" sciences. The "hard" sciences are primarily Physics, Biology and Chemistry. Beyond that are the "soft" sciences, none of which has a reasonably rigorous set of methodologies like, say, Physics or Chemistry do. (Biology is a little less rigorous.) All have some degree of weakness and fiction-making in that regard. Not to know that would be terribly, terribly naive.
Archaeology, Economics and History, while not strictly rigorous, have enough methodology in them to yield generally useful results. Psychology and Sociology, along with Literary Studies, have less rigour, but still some useful findings for those who can winnow out chaff. Anthropology, Religious Studies, Educational Studies and so on are a heavy mix of ideology and methodology...most people cannot sort them out anymore, and much of what they say is apocryphal at best, downright absurd at worst. And Critical Theory, Gender Studies, and Basketweaving belong at the far end of the spectrum...except that Basketweaving tends to do more good than harm, which is more than can be claimed for its companions.
So I would not "denigrate" all of what is called the "social sciences." But anyone with an ounce of common sense will denigrate some of them.