> Knowing that HN is generally against it, I say it anyway
I am actually on the contrarian side of you, but thanks for putting you out there. I understand and respect your point and everything, but there is one thing, that I want to put out regarding what you said. To state the following, is quite problematic:
> Religious scholars have actually been the best psychologists but are generally dismissed by non-believers.
Without going into detail, for every profession, there are people who are good and bad at it. This has nothing to do with any background or anything. The difference with psychologists and priests/ missionaries/ etc. is, that one is certified and the other is not necessarily certified. This makes a huge difference in liability of the term/ role and it's rather dangerous to put them in the same bag. And I don't think to make this distinction is not dismissive.
> Knowing that HN is generally against it, I say it anyway
I am actually on the contrarian side of you, but thanks for putting you out there. I understand and respect your point and everything, but there is one thing, that I want to put out regarding what you said. To state the following, is quite problematic:
> Religious scholars have actually been the best psychologists but are generally dismissed by non-believers.
Without going into detail, for every profession, there are people who are good and bad at it. This has nothing to do with any background or anything. The difference with psychologists and priests/ missionaries/ etc. is, that one is certified and the other is not necessarily certified. This makes a huge difference in liability of the term/ role and it's rather dangerous to put them in the same bag. And I don't think to make this distinction is not dismissive.