A Critique of Theological Thinking

A CRITIQUE OF THEOLOGICAL THINKING
Theology is the study of (logos) God (theos), or, as some have defined it, “the science of things divine”. In broad terms it is the field of thinking which deals with the attempt to answer the age old questions: Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? Theology proposes that a creator/deity is responsible and then proceeds to supply much dogma to support the concept.
To call theology “the science of things divine” seems to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. If science is the body of systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (Webster), and things divine are concepts derived from myth or fantasy, there can be no conciliation of the two. Science does not deal in myth, and vice versa. To pretend that they do seems fraudulent. This difference in the technique of analytical thinking is the reason there can seldom be a constructive dialogue between people of faith and people of science. They begin with contradictory assumptions which make real communication impossible unless one or the other relinquishes his/her assumption. The person of faith admittedly believes in something that cannot be observed or demonstrated or replicated. The person of science does not believe this, but he cannot prove it is false. The result is an impasse which is not easily resolved. The best that can happen when two such minds meet is an agreement to disagree. Persuasion is out of the question, and any attempt at such quickly becomes harmful to the relationship. Some scientists, an apparent minority, try to handle this dilemma by compartmentalizing their thinking into that which is science and that which is theological. They claim that science and religion are simply two different methods of looking at life and are not to be mixed. Science will handle the physical, and religion (faith) will handle the non-physical. This way the questions are evaded but not resolved.
We don’t have readily available, objective answers to the age old questions, but humans don’t cease to search whenever there is uncertainty. It is human nature to be attracted by those who have leadership skills and who profess to have knowledge to dispense and who pose as authority figures. Wherever uncertainty exists, there have always been some individuals who (a) think they have figured out some possible answers, and (b) benefit from peddling their solutions to the multitudes who will buy them--literally and figuratively. These peddlers become our theologians, and many have achieved popularity and acclaim both past and present. The demand for authority figures who could inform the masses as to the answers to the age old questions led to the establishment of colleges and institutions where such would-be authority figures could be trained. These are known as theological schools or seminaries, and their products are theologians and clergy.
The establishment of temples, churches, mosques and synagogues over the past three millennia are the manifestation of the extent to which man will go in attempting to find answers. The fact that the founders of these religions each were convinced that they had the answers, yet were similar only to the extent that they each claimed one God, did not prevent them from creating different sets of dogma, ritual and myth. Each had its prophets who were idolized and deemed the ultimate authority, e.g. Moses/Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, and more recently Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy. Each of these claimed God-given knowledge as to the proper way to think and worship, and they prescribed specific behavior with regard to disciplining those who go astray or who are seen as heretics or infidels. Arrogance seems to be characteristic of such prophets, i.e. “God spoke to me, and I know------.”

 

Nice rant, lofhay . I will try to turn it into a discussion for you. As I have with several of your other threads. I suppose I can thank you for not plugging other work in it. So thanks.

A deacon in a church my brother attends designs nuclear bombs. He (the deacon/scientist) apparently holds multiple PhD's. He is obviously an outlier of your theory.

I am sure that he would disagree with your use of the word "arrogance" to describe those prophets, regardless of whether or not your believe their words to have divine inspiration. It seems to me that you're demonstrating the same dogmatic arrogance yourself, only from the perspective of an atheist. Your critique effectively manifests the exact same ideals it seeks to discredit, making it pretty useless.

I firmly believe that science and religion can coexist. In my experience, it is not hard to find scientists who have are faithful believers. I know Catholic medical doctors, Baptist botanists, Presbyterian astronomers - clearly all have managed to figure out how to let the two coexist in their heads.

Actually, nevermind. The more I reread, the more I'm convinced that you just posted a disjointed rant. It's going to take more that what I have to offer this afternoon to turn this into a discussion.

 

homeopathy is not a science. nor is crystal healing or magnet therapy or ghost hunting. Yes you can study religion, because that is human made. Its the claim of some mythical being and it's influence on the world that falls apart. Example: The Catholic church supported the slave trade. Well documented. Everyone knows it. Mohammed, Abraham and John Smith are prophets who have spoken to the divine. Full of shit. But we can study their actions. Brain tissue autopsies would be nice, but a little late. Back to science.

Jazz, you talk of scientists who can compartmentalize science and religion. Kind of like priests who can compartmentalize gods work and pedophilia. Just because the human brain is complex and people rationalize and lie to themselves, doesnt make it right.

 

Prophets were the political pundits of their time.

I don't think there is a better way to look at them.

 

--- merged: Oct 13, 2012 at 8:52 AM ---

--- merged: Oct 13, 2012 at 8:57 AM ---

Thanks, Jazz. If what I am doing is ranting, I surely want to change this. My ideas are based on my inclination to not regard as "evidence" or "truth" anything that can not be proven scientifically or at least in a court room. I know that "truth" is like beauty (in the eye of the beholder) to some extent. I simply can make no use, myself, of any concept or info that does not pass scientific scrutiny. I will give more thought to how I can avoid "ranting".
--- merged: Oct 13, 2012 at 9:11 AM ---

--- merged: Oct 13, 2012 at 9:17 AM ---
I think of science as a method of study or research which uses certain tools, e.g. repetition of results (replication), testable by any and all with the same results every time, and the ability to be communicated to others without error. For me, belief in the supernatural meets none of these tests, and thus is not communicable/provable. I do not see the "study of religion" as being remotely scientific. If I am not seeing the whole picture, I will consider any info to that end.
--- merged: Oct 13, 2012 at 9:28 AM ---
Would someone please define "ranting" for me. The way I think of it, it is mostly emotional, not constructive, and ranters turn me off. If I am being a ranter, then I would like to undeerstand how, and will do whatever it takes to cease being so.

 

I think it depends on the branch of theology (there are many) and which religious dogma is involved as to whether a conversation can be had or a bridge built between it and the scientific community.

It also depends where on the dogmatic spectrum any given religious individual finds him or herself. There are Christians who believe both in evolution and God Creator. There are scientists who don't negate the idea of God working in some fashion behind the scenes.

It's the brand of theology that has stopped asking the questions and replaced them with definitive and undisputed truths that I believe you are talking about lofhay, and I agree that reasonable conversation is difficult, if not impossible in that case, but I don't agree that Theology and Science should be deemed cut off from one another or that discussions can't still be had in the shared quest for answers to the big questions.

We can have a discussion here about specific theologies/religions and their benefits to mankind or their harm to societies on their flip side, but I don't see one developing over the idea that Theology and Science are and will always remain incompatible.

To assert the existence of God and define him, arrogantly proposes that all is known.

To assert the non-existence of God based on evidence to date which does not reveal him, arrogantly proposes that all is known.

 

i am not religious person. but the idea that somehow religion monopolizes circular reasoning is stupid. scientific procedures are entirely circular. they depart from particular framing assumptions; the develop operations built around the criterion of repeatability as if repeatability means that the results of an experiment stand independently of the circular relation between framing assumptions and procedures. this isn't so say that therefore there's no difference between scientific procedures in general and religious thinking---but the differences cannot be explained by the idea that the latter is circular where the former is not.

you could say that any interaction with the world is a kind of ongoing experiment. the procedures and validity criteria are looser...but still, if a given ideological framework cannot provide agents with the bases for coherent orientation in the world, it would not be an ideological framework for long. a community of believers can generate a range of experiences made coherent by virtue of the immediate results being continuously looped through religious assumptions. this shouldn't be a surprise. it happens all the time.

so there are people who believe genuinely insane things like capitalist markets are rational and are able to use that irrational belief as a baseline assumption through which they loop experience in the world as well. it's like any other religious signification, that.

 

You have asked no questions. You have stated your opinion in a manner that is more evocative of a lecture than a conversation. Perhaps if you attempted to draw your audience into a conversation as opposed to a heavy-handed, Stalinesque diatribe, you might find less objection to your opening statement.

I think a more equatable comparison would be posters who are going to troll staff members and not thing there will be any repercussions. Oh wait, that's different.

 

Yes Sir, Administrator Sir.

The point is that people have an amazing capacity to rationalize extreme behavior, especially when they are doing the work of the almighty. How many africans were forcibly converted to christianity, as a favor? They died as slaves, but their souls were protected so they were better off.

 

Is this to be the narrow theme of the discussion then? Sadly, and for once, I was hoping for more.

 

thats why im called omega; once i start posting everyone else leaves. I bow out; continue amongst yourselves.

 

Oh fer Chrissakes!

 

Missed the point there, didn't you chief? You know, your persona over at 4.0 was much more entertaining. I really wish you'd go back to that. And thinking that you're the end of all threads is a little over-dramatic and self-important, don't you think?

If you're going to seriously call "religious behavior" "extreme", I'm going to call shenanigans, especially if you don't give yourself any outs. Einstein was a scientist and a Jew and wrote several letters that demonstrated exactly how the two seemingly contrary ideals could coexist quite easily. And I'm pretty sure that he never buggered a little boy, however you may wish he did. Darwin was a devout Christian and struggled with how his discoveries would be treated, which is why it took him so long to publish. Most of the ground-breaking work in the early days of the scientific method was done by folks of faith, including many who were actual priests. The Jesuits, for instance, have a strong tradition of science - but you can dismiss those with a wave of the hand because you're small-minded enough to tar them because people that weren't them did some awful things. Which makes you equivalent to people that perpetuate racial stereotypes. Chew on that for a while.

Unintentional or not, that's funny.

 

you mention Darwin, and his waiting years to publish because of his religious beliefs. Thank you for supporting my arguments, unintentionally or not.

Yes, the Vatican has an observatory. Great for science. Now lets talk to them about genetic research. Religion is I guess one of my sacred cows because of its massive influence. I think much of the dumbing down of America is due to a massive evangelical born again growth. You now have a congressman who claims to be a scientist and yet he states that evolutionists will burn in hell. Paul Ryan, a catholic, votes straight religious lines when it comes to abortion rights and fertility. If ryan had his way, my girls born through ivf would never have had the chance to be conceived. So when religion exerts its influence into the law and hurts the growth of society then I have a problem.

Small minded and equivalent to a racist: you demean yourself, sir.