Is it academically sound to accept false history if an accurate telling of history challenges faith?

Question

In particular, I enjoy this quote: "Modern historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. The Inquisition was actually an attempt by the Catholic Church to stop unjust executions."

Justified by a (it doesn't get better than this) National Review article.

Answer 1

It's honestly hard for me to trust history even though I enjoy reading it. I dont know if its true that Catholicism protested the inquisition or not because I wasnt there. I know however that I never heard this until recently. It could be inaccurate simply because much more was recorded saying Catholicism brought the inquisition on. Sounds like something to look into more though.

it reminds me of how we were taught for generations that the Native Americans were savages when the Pilgrims came here and then, it comes out that no, the Pilgrims were. My guess is they BOTH were. But in the inquisition posts, Im glad to see its sparked some interest in you :)

Answer 2

It i never academically sound to accept anything or teach anything which you do not have proof of. Speculation is not education. We can prove that evolution happened and is happening. We can not prove there is a God. We can prove that the Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids. We cannot prove that the Hebrews were slaves. We can prove the parallel links between the Minoan Civ and Plato's Atlantis although it is pure speculation as to whether or not it truely is. However we cannot prove Solomon's "great kingdom" ever existed. We can prove that in 28 BCE Augustus was declared dictator for life. We cannot prove that Jesus ever existed.

So to answer you question acadamia should always be questioning faith and therefore acadamics that playcate faith are not institutions of learning but temples of indoctrination.

Answer 3

Of course not. Unfortunately, it's part and parcel of most religions and nationalistic movements to "reinterpret" history in a fashion that best suits their aims and beliefs. You'd expect this kind of shameful bias from a religion-controlled nation like Iran, but the shocking thing is how common it is among Christians in democracies such as the United States, as well. Hence the push for the whole "Intelligent Design" nonsense in public schools.

Answer 4

Well Christ came to tell everyone the truth. Every saint that comes along comes to reestablish the truth that was misconstrued. If they are so week hearted that they loose faith from hearing truth. Then they where not sincere. They where using God or religion. for their own sense Gratification. On the other hand. I understand your point but we have to take some risk at spreading Truth in a favorable way as possible.

Answer 5

Interesting. You are saying people would rather remain ignorant to the truth and be taught something false than to accept something truthful because it may fracture what they believe in presently. I guess that depends on what they think is really an acurate represenation of history. Much of history has a Christian backround. I guess that would be a scary thing for someone who believed all their life that it didn't.

Answer 6

What do you mean by "accept"?

I assume you are talking about teaching history in schools, or perhaps you are even talking about teaching evolution in schools.

If someone teaches something in school that you don't agree with, it's your right to choose whether or not to believe it. But you should still learn about it, because that's the current theory. All academic learning is a process of forming theories that explain our current state of knowledge, and then coming up with better theories that explain it even better. If you know what the current theories are, you can come up with new and better ones in the future.

As a teacher at the university level, I don't mind if my students disagree with me, but I'd like them to understand how I arrived at my opinion.

Answer 7

Academically justified, no, politically advantageous when written, yes. 3,000 to 5,000 died in the inquisition, that is not in question, yet 150,000 died from being burned as witches. Strange that more was made out of the inquisition.

Answer 8

Actually, the solution is quite simple. If you're in an academic environment, simply switch to an institution that supports your point of view. True, the quality of organ that might accept your document for publication might be affected, as well as the standing of the peers who might review it, but you'll still be able to be published if you uphold the specific standards of the institute you sell your soul to. :)

Answer 9

they're always changing history, it's hard to know what to believe. Kinda like the way we leave out the holocaust we performed on the native americans by almost wiping them out. instead we focus on one meal (thanksgiving) every year. the only thing challenging your faith should be you. only through introspection and an understanding of all sides can we make educated decisions. then faith is unquestionable.

Answer 10

No. Truth and fact cannot be altered by desire for it to be otherwise due to faith or otherwise. To accept false history is only self delusion to avoid the conflict of answering the "hard questions" in order preserve the comfort of a prefered alternate yet nonexistant reality. Too many people these days have made themselves "impervious to evidence to the contrary" in order to protect their visions of how things "ought to be".
Some people seem to fear that challenging their faith would equate to denial of their faith. For example, why do people believe that accepting evolution as fact somehow precludes a belief in the existence of God? Thus by a self created necessity, they place non-competing concepts unecessarily at odds. A simple accepting of the "challenge" would reveal greater understanding of their faith. So God created man? Why is it presumed that He would only do so in a manner constrained by our simple expectations? If the will of God is unknowable and He does in fact work in mysterious ways then why is it unacceptable that He could have created man by the process of evolution as we now understand it? The greater lesson by accepting the "challenge" in this case is that we cannot, in fact, presume that God would act in specific ways that are constrained by our own preconceived expectations. This is why ancient Islam actively pursued science as a means to come to understand the works of God. What better way to learn of God than to truely understand his works rather than deny that understanding simply because it conflicts with our preconceived expectations about God.
So, in short, perhaps the better course of action in the interest of faith is to accept the "challenge" rather than run and hide in some prefered self-delusional state.
I would take this opportunity to claim that claims of "infallibility" (eg "papal infallibility") is one of the greatest disservices of organized religion to mankind. Anything written by the hand of man or spoken by the mouth of man should always be suspect of "human tainting". "Infallibility" is the greatest political power scam ever institutionalized. It unecessarily creates "challenges to faith" when things that must be true due to infallibility are proven wrong. There are a lot of things taken on faith and presumed "infallible" that are in dire need of "challenging".
Also consider, for example, the first cannonical form of the New Testament was compiled by Emperor Constantine. How much of this is inspired and how much colored by a motivation to rule an empire? And now many people consider anything outside of this cannon to be heresy. For that matter how many "papal decrees" have been based on faith and how many based on an interest in retaining power over a people?
Academia approaches a topic with an open mind and willingness to change accepted theories when credible evidence (peer reviewed) to the contrary is found. Faith too often causes one to approach a topic with preconceived expectations and to deny credible evidence to the contrary.
Want to win a Nobel prize in academia? Propose and substantiate a revolutionary new theory. Want to get excommunicated in religion? Propose and substantiate a revolutionary new theory.