1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

A Critique of Theological Thinking

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by lofhay, Oct 12, 2012.

  1. Raghnar

    Raghnar Getting Tilted

    This, at least in Italy, do not fall under the domain of Theology, but fall under the domain of History, Sociology, Architecture, Archaeology...and so on... just APPLIED o INSPIRED from religion (Schleimann did it with Omero's Iliad, someone did it with the bible...).

    Theology is philsophy related to religion, and it is not a science, in the same way that many philosophical branches aren't scientifical at all. That doesn't mean that isn't rigorous or motivated (even scientifically motivated, e.g. taking notice of scientifical analysis, historical facts and archeological findings), just means that the tools used are not scientifical but philosophical...
     
  2. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    All scientific tools are philosophical tools. As pig once said: There's a reason that advanced degrees are philosophy doctorates. It's impossible to even begin to interpret data without making philosophical assumptions. This is as true in physics as it is in psychology.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Granted, science is reliant upon philosophy at some stage but I don't think it works in the reverse. Or does it? Maybe so, if philosophy stays abreast of scientific advancements and adjusts the conversation accordingly. Theology, as a branch of philosophy doesn't appear to do that.
     
  4. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    The reason that they are PhDs is historical (everything was considered philosophy except law, medicine and, interestingly, theology at one time).

    I would agree that it is impossible to intepret data without making philosophical assumptions. I would go furher and say that it is impossible to interpret life without making philosophical assumptions. That is the nature of philosophy.

    There is also a philosophy of science. I'm not sure there is a science of philosophy, though. Maybe it all comes down to the definition of "science" (and of "philosophy").

    To be clear, I don't see that declaring a study to be a science elevates it in any way above something which is not a science (nor am I suggesting that anyone here is claiming that).

    I also think that there is reasonable debate that could be had over whether the distinction is of any importance. Maybe Karl Popper would be a good source to begin with.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  5. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    All knowledge is based on definitions.

    However, your definition may not be complete, or it may be inaccurate
    or there may be another definition. (different, but better, worse or equal to yours)

    The whole may be taken into account, or parts of that may be better or worse in comparison to others.
    It also may be situational.
     
  6. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Or even cultural :)
     
  7. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Science is more than simply a method, and I think many people consider science merely physical science or applied science. I think that's what we're getting caught up on.

    As for theology, it does include a systematic approach to religious ideas, many of which are related to ethics and human nature. This includes the use of critique, reason, argumentation, and analysis. Just because you can't look at these things under a microscope (literally) doesn't mean it's not conducive to a scientific approach, i.e., a systematized approach to knowledge.

    All the while we get caught up on definitions and we still haven't had any serious critiques of theological thinking.

    And yet political science falls under the humanities.

    Oh my head assplode! :eek:
     
  8. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    wait. what was scholasticism if not a method?
     
  9. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    I think that anything that teaches people how to think and communicate is useful.

    I'm not clear how "theological thinking" is different from "thinking".

    I am curious as to whether there will come a time when we see more convergence of theology and the "hard" sciences in their studies of the nature of reality. Perhaps we will never be able to truly perceive/experience the reality that we are part of due to our need to maintain a "self" from which to observe it.

    P.S. I see "science" as something more specific than "a systematized approach to knowledge" but I agree that we don't need to argue definitions. So, I am leaving that semantic argument alone and moving on.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  10. the_jazz

    the_jazz Accused old lady puncher

    There's a serious difference between "science" and the "scientific method". One is the basis and the other is the most accepted practice of the former. It is entirely possible to be a scientist who arrives at the "right answer" without using the scientific method - see: the Greeks and Chinese who either theorized or invented much of the basis for where we are today.

    That said, any good scientist will tell you that there is no proof of God with the huge caveat that this is only by the methods we have available at the moment. This is not the same as disproving that there is a God (or gods for that matter).

    I always find it interesting when evangelical atheists wander in and are shocked that I don't immediately buy into their worldview. It's exactly like the shock that evangelical Christians have under the same circumstances.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Unless theology revisits and reanalyzes held beliefs in light of new data, there remains a fairly large distinction between it's systematic approach and the approach science takes. What discipline of science flatly adheres to hypotheses and theories once contradictory evidence is presented?

    Unless you are only arguing that, up to the point where a reevaluation is required, the process is similar.
     
  12. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Well, first I'll refer back to the quotes from the Dalai Lama I posed above.

    Second, note that medieval Christianity is far different from contemporary Christianity. There's a reason for that.
     
  13. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Yes, indeed! :)

    I even have a difficulty with the concept of "God", as if the term is clear and understood in the same way by all who use it. For example, could the ideas of the Dao/Tao and God be used interchangeably by some people? Not by those who consider God a sentient being, maybe - but for others it would be OK.

    In any event, it is neither provable or disprovable. I would suggest that most of us live with working assumptions - but that is all they are.
     
  14. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    I'm not disagreeing with you as much as I am trying to understand where you're coming from on this. Are you trying to put theology on, if not equal footing with science, then at least in the same ballpark by reason of the fact that the systematic approach to the development of religious ideas is comparable to the scientific approach to the development of hypotheses and theories?

    I don't dispute this really but I think the comparison ends there, with the possible exception of the more open minded religions such as Buddhism and Taoism. Theologically speaking, religions that are less dogmatic and have the advantage of being designed around broader philosophical concepts are less likely to butt heads with science. In fact, they're well suited to a more harmonic marriage with science.

    But when it comes to contemporary Christianity, which I agree has evolved considerably from the Christianity of the Middle Ages, I don't agree that it's evolved through any sort of systematic approach. At least not an approach towards keeping pace with new information that might require the revision of it's basic tenets. In my opinion, it's merely adapted itself as necessary to survive and remain relevant. Rather than accept new ideas, it shuffles around old ones.

    Where some theological thinking may still take a systematic approach in the evolution of religious ideas, a good many religions are only putting new bindings on old books.

    Then again, I'm not entirely sure we're not talking at cross purposes here, Baraka.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  15. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Quite frankly, the study of anything today in sincerity is only for secular purposes.

    Because modern moderate religions are essentially the same, coming down to The Golden Rule...that and be productive.
    It's like different flavors of soup.
    So what's your flavor?

    It's only when you get into more "extremist" or literal contexts or application that there is any dispute or concern.
    But that's only 5-10% of the whole.

    Most people just live their lives.

    And most people who dislike Atheists...tend to be those annoying ones that look down on everyone else, convinced they are right.
    Sound familiar?

    Most discussions of theology I've seen are like finding out different components to familiar or unfamiliar recipes.
    People are more curious or "confused" by it than anything else...but this is like a dog tilting its head trying to figure something out.
     
  16. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    The problem as I see it is that people throw around the concept of science, which is a vague term. Stating that you "love science" is like stating that you "love language" or "love art." That's great, but it doesn't really tell me much. My love of language could mean many things. Do I like dead languages such as Latin? Why? Do I consider the design of alien and programming languages legitimate language? Why? Do I find patois abhorrent or charming? Why?

    As for all of these areas—science, language, and art—people will often point at things as being necessarily excluded, but the reasons are often biased or otherwise subjective. Klingon and Quenya aren't a real languages, because they were developed artificially and no one really needs to communicate with them outside of fictional settings. At least Perl has a real-world use value. "That's just random noise" some say about certain avant-garde pieces. "That's just four minutes and thirty-three seconds of silence, Mr. Cage"; "That's just a shovel, Mr. Duchamp." These things can't be art.

    So it is with science. If it doesn't have a physical property or can otherwise be quantified before our eyes, maybe it isn't science. How can we know? We have people speaking about science as a specific thing, but nobody has adequately delineated its parameters. We've had a defence of science as something rather materialistic. That's a narrow view and is ultimately unsatisfactory.

    Even theology has hypotheses and theories, as does history and many other things without atomic structures or dependencies on ecosystems.

    My issue, basically, is that taking such a narrow view of science seems to me an attempt to make a discussion on theological thinking a nonstarter, and all it took was a rallying cry of, "Science!" This tells me nothing.

    Dogma is dogma, but there are varying degrees even within a single denomination of Christianity. We're talking about at least two tiers of dogmatic factors. We can run the spectrum of creation science to theistic evolution as one avenue. Christians who reject legitimate science aren't necessarily paragons of their faith. Anyone who rejects reality from within a system isn't necessarily proof that the system has failed. Not every Christian still believes the world is flat.

    I wouldn't be surprised that both have occurred, though I think the former concern was more scientific-based, while the latter more political.

    This may be true depending on the ideas, but religious history has clearly marked shifts. Just looking at Christianity, consider developments such as the New Testament, the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment. Most, if not all, of these may likely fall under both the "keeping pace with new information" and "survive and remain relevant."

    I don't really know where I'm going with this. I suppose I'm just weary of this clinging to the "science/not science" precondition of whether theology is even worth discussing.

    Yeah, I really don't know anymore. I'm not nearly as sharp as Descartes.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Understandable. However, other than omega, I'm not clear that anyone was saying that theology isn't worth discussing because it is or isn't a science.

    The question of whether it has value is a different question altogether, at least in my opinion. I think I have already stated that I think it does.
     
  18. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    I'm fully on board with using the term "science" to refer to the study of anything worth studying. The science of being a good parent, the science of effective toe-nail clipping, the science of religious paradox.

    So yeah, I think I get your point now. That being, it becomes difficult to discuss one area of study vs another when one is expected to automatically negate the other due to little more than differences in methods and goals.
     
  19. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Well, not exclusively, though certainly in part, and it has been the overall vibe I've been getting from a lot of the posts. Even from the OP: This whole thread was framed as "theological thinking is just about myth and and the supernatural" as though it were something to scoff at. Christianity isn't defined exclusively as "a belief in the existence of God." All major religions are much more than that, just as science is much more than "proof that matter exists." I bring this up because much of the discussion has been, "Well, you can't prove God exists, so...it's all just superstition, man." End of discussion?

    Yes, you have, and this sort of track is more interesting than what I've more or less complained about. Maybe we should just set aside the science issue and maybe just talk about theology simply as a study of religion.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  20. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Well...here's a definition from Merriam-Webster Dictionary
    Interestingly enough...they use "the science of theology" as an example.
    Again, it depends on your definition...

    However, most of them tend to use the word "systematic" with repetition.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012