A Critique of Theological Thinking

The rationalisation or the abhorrent behaviour? Or both?

 

Putting religion aside for a moment, do you believe there's a place for the consideration of a power/entity/intelligence beyond our understanding? Do you ever imagine for instance, that our universe is one out of a billion other universes floating around in a test tube as part of some experiment, those in charge of the experiment and their motives, as unfathomable to us as ours are to the bacteria in our petri dishes?

My point is, there doesn't have to be a reason why what is, is. Then again, it's impossible to rule out the possibility that there might be. You seem to take the position, much as some religions do, that the answer is already known and further discussion on the subject is a waste of time. I think the real myth is that we know more than an atom's worth of what there is to know.

 

Though there could be a link between sex and greed. Not so sure about capitalism and rape .. but .. hmm. Maybe you're onto something.

Sex and Greed Linked in the Brain - Science News - redOrbit

 

Really, no one needs to prove god doesnt exist; there has been no proof that he does exist so why waste time with it? The burden of proof needs to be on that he does exist. Until then, stop making decisions based on an unlikely premise. Reading sheep entrails didnt work for romans, astrology didnt work for nancy reagan, and praying to allah didnt work for bin laden.
--- merged: Oct 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM ---

Philosophy 101.

 

I'm not a fan of dogmatic, monotheistic religion or of its opposing brand of atheism. Neither are attractive to those who wish to ponder existence from a place of curious wonder. Ever since Descartes offered a way for Western religion and science to co-exist in a world dominated by religion, science has kept to its own disciplines, leaving religion to handle all things of a spiritual nature. Though many Western religions have allowed themselves to stagnate, philosophy in the broad sense and theology specifically, provide the only avenue available where such things can still be discussed. You cannot do away with religion, lofhay and expect science to pick up the philosophical slack. For all of its flaws, religion has its place in keeping the door open to what it is we're all searching for. I admire the scientific process but honestly wouldn't want to live in a world completely sterilized by its rigorous exactness.
--- merged: Oct 14, 2012 at 3:35 PM ---

The question wasn't posed to you omega. It was posed to a member of this discussion who doesn't live under a rock, under a bridge.

 

this is just great; I have supported my arguments; I havent made any personal attacks. But I have been told that I am small minded; I have been equated to a racist; I have been called a troll several times. Well how about this; I'm not so stupid or pinheaded or some pie in the sky mystic to continue to insist that something that is unproven might exist. I have been personally attacked and insulted. So Fuck You. Continue your little discussion without me. But at least in the real world I work for the betterment of humanity. I go in where others run away, and I work to make a difference. I'm not waiting for some bearded old man to make the world a better place; I do it every day I pin on a badge and put myself in harm's way. So go pretend your little belief without meaning amounts to anything.

 

You may simply be the only one here who wants to beat the dead horse called 'Us against Them" There is nothing particularly wrong with your opinions on the evils of organized religion and in fact, anyone of us can make the same cases you do.

I could be wrong, but I took the OP as an invitation to explore the question "Can Theology and Science Get Along."

 

Me neither. Nor do I believe that the wearing of a badge makes anyone a good philosopher or particularly good at persuading others to their point of view. How do you know what the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of anyone posting here are? I call shenanigans.

 

Oh the fucking possibilities. I'm there.

 

First of all, I don't know how non-Jews typically understand Jewish scripture, but there is absolutely nothing in Torah to cause Jews to believe that God is supposed to go around striking down people who disobey the commandments (of which there are 613, not ten). That is just not how we understand either the nature of the commandments, or divine justice and forgiveness-- not in any way, shape, or form. If one is following the commandments because one supposes that if one does not, God will kill you, then one is following the commandments for entirely the wrong reasons. Jews are supposed to follow the commandments (which, being given to the Jews, are not applicable to non-Jews, and never were so) because that is our responsibility within the covenant we have with God, and because we understand that following them is how we are supposed to guide ourselves toward creating a just society (which I freely admit we have yet to achieve, but then again, everyone else also has yet to achieve it), and because they are a spiritual discipline, to facilitate and enhance spiritual awareness while fostering moral and ethical behavior.

Not only do we not believe that God strikes down anyone who transgresses a commandment, we don't even believe in Hell. We believe that God is forgiving and merciful, and desires what is good for us.

The supposed "Old Testament God" of tempestuous rages and vindictiveness is generally an image created from non-Jewish readings of Jewish scripture, done in the absence of the interpretive textual tradition and theological traditions in whose light the text was designed to be read and understood.

In your opinion, based on criteria that you appear to have created.

Which is fine, for you. No one is compelling you to believe in anything if you don't wish to do so, or, as far as I can see, suggesting that you should be compelled to believe anything you don't wish to believe.

However, I may suggest that some modicum of humility and tolerance might indicate that one could potentially make room for the possibility-- remote though it might be-- that other people might see things differently than you do, have good reasons for seeing things differently than you do, and, the mere fact of their seeing things differently than you do does not automatically make them stupid and deserving of your contempt.

OK, so what it sounds like is simply that you don't believe in God, and therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot. While you are certainly entitled not to believe in God, demanding agreement in precise degree with this opinion from everyone else seems just as intolerant, narcissistic, and irrational as fundamentalist religious fanatics who demand that everyone believe precisely the same interpretations and theologies as they do, or be considered damned to Hell or subhuman or something.

Religious traditions preserve ancient and thoughtful philosophical discussions, poetic literature, legal precedents and frameworks, music and art, culture and customs from many places over many centuries.

I can readily understand how someone can be unmoved to believe in God, and thus disinclined to affiliate with a religion. What I cannot understand is how someone can be so utterly dismissive and contemptuous of religious traditions that they can find no reason to respect the choices of others in regard to faith.

In your opinion. Which, again, is fine for you. That does not mean, by definition, that others ought to see things the same way.

What I am really struck by is not just how completely and totally you appear to have disdain for all religion, monolithically, in every form, but how little your depiction of religion and theology appears to coincide with the actualities of religion as most people of faith practice them.

Aside from the fact that tolerance for different opinions appears not to be a particularly high priority for you, I cannot help thinking that your arguments against religion and rejecting theology would seem weightier if you actually educated yourself about what you are railing against. Right now, your depiction of religion seems like it was based on a casual examination of some fundamentalist Christian websites in comparison, perhaps, to a vitriolically anti-theist atheist website. Something which so vehemently attacks a system or school of thought with which it seems largely unfamiliar is ultimately not particularly persuasive to anyone with any greater familiarity with that school of thought or system-- or even just those with inclination to complex and deliberative thought.

Religion is ancient, complex, and multidisciplinary. It is extraordinarily multifaceted and non-monolithic. And it brings considerable spiritual satisfaction, emotional satisfaction, and intellectual satisfaction to millions of people. None of which means that you have to believe in God or be religious. But it might signify that it has value of some kind, at least some of the time, for at least some people, and thus is worth not treating with contempt, especially when you yourself are not educated in the area of which you speak.

 

No. Science, after Galileo, is a METHOD. A method that cannot be applied to God or philosophy (and only with limited conditions to psychology), and a method which disproves crystal healing and homeopathy.
Theology isn't a Science, because doesn't have the scientific premises, methods of investigation and not even the same means, as it is for most of the branches (not every) of philosophy.

That definitly doesn't mean that is incosistent or unrespectable... Simply that you have to use another name for it, labeling "Science" doesn't give more or less respectability because is simply plain wrong.
Theology can be (can) a philosophyical study and endeavour, that doens't make it scientifical, just philosophical.

Everyone trying to mix the two, trying "new broad definition", imho isn't really understanding what is going on, both in Science and in Theology

This is the first step to have a coexistence of Science and Theology and of Theology for a scientist and of Science for a theologist: recognize they both have very different, almost non-intersecable, range of application.
Modern theology almost doesn't intersecate with onthology that is regime for philosophy and Science.
Someone is trying to make a synthesis but is not very successful insofar imho...

And is not a metter of "duality" (Rogue I'm talking to you) is just a matter on what ones PERSONAL beliefs are and what personal beliefs works, and what common facts are and works out.
Science talks about common facts: for everyone verifiable, solid, with onthological (at least at a certain extent) meaning and practical purposes.
Religion talks about personal beliefs: for everyone a little different, adjustable, with well-being meaning and purpose wich well being purpose can be related to an onthological one (heaven exist) but an onthological that we can't perceive or investigate and thus completely out of the regime of Science.

These two can be perfectly consistent in the same person, at least while no-one messes up the two roles. E.g. I knew a scientist that was a, earth-in-seven-days-creationist. That was obv. a messed up person, clutching between his nuclear physics decay experiments that tells us the earth is billion years old, and the inculcated beliefs that tells him the earth was created in seven days 6 thousand years ago... Everything was a "test of faith" for him... ok is a perfect aporistic philosophy (if a all-knowing all-powerful being don't want to be found and tells us ridicolous stories to drive us crazy, sure as hell he can...), but isn't all that consistent and empowering....

In the end personal empowerment is all that counts: scientific set of mind empowers you and your way to seing reality. A good open-minded religious set of mind, whatever it is, is empowering giving you confidence and well-being, at least if it doesn't clutch with other key aspects of your life.
In these way science and religion can be perfectly coexistent and reasonable in the same person.

I personally don't believe in a god, simply because I don't feel to need it for improving my life, but I profoundly respect those people who have a mature faith in a religion (which are a minority by far).

 

I don't think I can agree, Rogue.

Of course, you may feel that this is just a semantic argument, but I'd argue that psychology and theology fall under the heading "humanities" and not "science". You may feel that there is no useful distinction, but that is a separate discussion.

The scientific method is a tool and, like all tools, isn't useful in every area. Forming a testable hypothesis about the nature of integrity or love, for example, and then conducting experiments and gathering data to test that hypothesis won't necessarily provide a greater understanding of integrity or love.

Yes, there are facts to be known and there is logic that can be proven but that does not, in my opinion, make the study a science.