Religous scholars.

[Pauliesonne]

Religous scholars makes a "lawyer's argument" which begins by starting from one assumption and piling up all evidence for it, while ignoring or attacking all evidence against. If they did come across anything that proved the opposite of what they already , that is not acceptable to them. This is human nature, and typical of many religious scholars who are determined to stick to their preexisting belief systems. And its why religions persist despite mountains of evidence against them.

Anyway, that's what I think and I wanted to know what other people's opinions are.

So, what are they?

[Piscivore]

It is a fallacy to make this blanket accusation against religious scholars. Some may do this, some don't, and of those that do, some do it deliberately and some do not. Additionally, this practise is not limited to religious study exclusively.

Religions persist despite mountains of evidence against them for many, many reasons, not because of this alone.

[ceo_esq]

Religous scholars makes a "lawyer's argument" which begins by starting from one assumption and piling up all evidence for it, while ignoring or attacking all evidence against. If they did come across anything that proved the opposite of what they already , that is not acceptable to them. This is human nature, and typical of many religious scholars who are determined to stick to their preexisting belief systems. And its why religions persist despite mountains of evidence against them.

Although I object to the "lawyer's agument" comment, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that all this is human nature. I've never noticed that religious scholars indulge in this sort of thing, on the whole, more than any other kind of scholar. It's hardly true, by the way, to suggest that mountains of evidence against all religions exist (if that's what you meant). Lack of evidence for is not the same as mountains of evidence against.

[Pauliesonne]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that all this is human nature. ].

The same could be said for people who believe in the mythical version of William Wallace.

[thaiboxerken]

I think you are mistaking religious scholars with religious apologists. Religious Scholars try to learn about the religion, it's history and the beliefs. Scholars don't necessarily try to promote the religion. Apologists are the ones that are the lawyers, the ones that can find no fault in the religion or the beilefs.

[Pauliesonne]

I think you are mistaking religious scholars with religious apologists. Religious Scholars try to learn about the religion, it's history and the beliefs. Scholars don't necessarily try to promote the religion. Apologists are the ones that are the lawyers, the ones that can find no fault in the religion or the beilefs.

Yes, you're right.

I did make a mistake.