Yes, and I agree with you but you have to look at who is defining the terms.
You have a bunch of theologians who try to define the debate along rigid terms. Anyone who tries to step outside of those boundaries is marginalized.
Fuck them. I agree with Dawkins about the relative value of theologians.
Mankind would still be living in mud huts if it were up to theologians.
You have a bunch of theologians who try to define the debate along rigid terms. Anyone who tries to step outside of those boundaries is marginalized.
Fuck them. I agree with Dawkins about the relative value of theologians.
Quote:What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?
Mankind would still be living in mud huts if it were up to theologians.
