/sci/ligion

[Anonymous No.8840894]

If religion is unscientific and unacademic, then why is it a course in Oxford and other exceptional universities?

[Anonymous No.8840910]

because people will pay for it brainlet, the same reason oxford has a gender studies centre

[Anonymous No.8840911]

>>8840894
>If religion is unscientific and unacademic

>>>/reddit/ is that way.

[Anonymous No.8840918]

>>8840911
you and i both know reddit is full of atheist faggots like yourself.

[Anonymous No.8840927]

>>8840894
>If religion is unscientific and unacademic, then why is it a course in Oxford and other exceptional universities?

because the study of religion yields a lot of insights into historical and modern events. It is stupid to not understand religion.

t.Atheist

[Anonymous No.8840993]

>>8840894
Because religion is the most common used tool to control those without higher education.

[Anonymous No.8841005]

>>8840894
Religion is both scientific and academic, even from an nonbeliever's view.

Part of religion is seeking to better understand (I'm going to assume we're talking about Christianity since nobody on 4chan bashes any other religion but Islam) God's creation. A lot of historically valuable minds were either religious or believed in a higher power without doctrine.

[Anonymous No.8841382]

>>8840894
>unscientific and unacademic
The humanities are thought too. If somebody really cared about a degree being "unscientific and unacademic" all humanities had to be cut.

[Anonymous No.8841414]

The study of pop-culture is a science.
Pop-culture itself is not a science.

[Anonymous No.8842381]

>>8841382
>History
>Geography
>Classics
>Psychology
Humanities aren't unacademic, what are you talking about

The correct answer is >>8840927, it's about the study of it which is useful, even if not in the way religious people think
I think it would be unacademic to teach it impartially and pretend there was credibility to parts of religion where there isn't any