posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 07:01 PM
Are you joking around here, Shade?
"This man, as you claim, is an independent scholar. Does the independent part mean that nobody wants to back his claims? if so then how is he a
"Independent scholar" means that he wasn't commissioned by a university to perform the study. It happens fairly often that serious scholarly work
is performed without being commissioned. Since the word "scholar" refers to someone who researches a topic in a rigorous way, there's nothing
about "scholar" that requires one be part of an institution. What do you mean "back his claims"? All of his research is sourced, anyone can
check it if they want. *You* could check it if you wanted. His peers checked it, and didn't dispute it, which means that they "back his
"I have to admit that I don't like organized religion, don't to bow to any of it. Your man there did, ok, and now he is a candidat for a
Do you know what Harvard Divinity School is? It's not a seminary school; you don't go there to become a priest or a minister. A Master's in
Theological Studies is a degree in which you research how people have interacted with religion throughout history. It's not doctrinal. Likewise, a
PhD from BU isn't a degree in *believing in God*, it's a degree in studying religion. No part of either the Harvard Divinity School *or* BU's PhD
program in religious studies constitutes a wing of organized religion.
"Well that doesn't change a thing. He's a candidate (woops I almost forgot: very important this: a master) a master in making a life out of taking
tall tales at face value an writing about them.
What that guy says about the supernatural surely must be carved in stone"
Nor does anything about having an MTS or PhD in religious studies require that one take "tall tales" at face value. In fact, the exact opposite of
that is true--getting a degree in religion requires a rigorous analysis of those "tall tales".
"'This particular work was peer reviewed' OK, so am I correct in assuming that means: people who believe the same thing say he wrote about it in a
No, you are actually completely incorrect in that assumption. "Peer-reviewed" means "reviewed by people who have studied religion" not "people
who are religious".
Even a casual reading of the book or, incidentally, of any of the criticism of the book, would realize that it's what's called "an ethnographic
study"; it analyzes a culture or a subculture without making claims to the veracity, or lack thereof, of that culture's beliefs.