(August 9, 2014 at 12:14 am)Undeceived Wrote: Minimalist, are you saying that the majority of Bible scholars are wrong about the Bible? How is that different from saying astrophysicists don't know anything about stars?
I don't mean to make an argument from authority here, but neither should we resort to ad hominem.
Brakeman inspired me to respond to this post. When I first read it, I had disregarded it as the usual attempt to compare theology to science. I've grown a bit tired of pointing out how fields of science like astrophysics are studies of objective realities that are measurable and the tests/evidence can be conducted/discovered independently by another scientist in that field.
By "objective reality", I mean measurements of mass, kinetic energy, temperature, velocity, distance etc. can be measured in quantifiable ways. Personal opinions do not enter into it. These discoveries can be duplicated by anyone else willing to devote the time. These discoveries can also be duplicated by anyone ignorant of the work of others.
Theology, by contrast, is at best philosophy (and I'm being charitable here). Interpretations of soft fields of study like music, art, literature or philosophy are dependent on subjective observations. One person's read of Shakespeare may vary from another's. Two different art critics may arrive at two different conclusions.
Even history, which is the study of certain objective realities and whether or not they happened in the past, is still subject to a lot of guesswork. Historian scholars themselves will tell you that, when delving into ancient history, like 2,000 years ago, there is much division and the consensus is based on what "likely" happened or didn't. The standard of evidence is much lower than what might exist in a science lab because the evidence itself is sketchy, based on biased testimony and often the lack of contrary testimony (since the winners often write history and the loser's writings may not be maintained or destroyed).
The evidence becomes even more murky in the study of history of religion. Even Bart Ehrman, a proponent of the historicity of Jesus, has written extensively about the problems of interpolation and pseudo-epigraphy in sacred scriptures. Testimonies come from superstitious people and even these are re-written and forged to meet the needs of later religious leaders.
All this doesn't even touch upon the contempt I have for theology in comparison to philosophy, history or art. With theology, you are interpreting mythology as if there was anything to know. It's like the study of voodoo or witchcraft. It's studying superstitious nonsense as if there was anything to be discovered. It has about as much seriousness as two Star Wars fans debating the "true teachings" of the Jedi.
But then you also have Brakeman's point that in science, there is the attempt to remove human bias in research. This is enforced by a demanding system of peer review where your peers get prestige by ripping apart what you've asserted. The system checks itself and ferrets out faulty or poorly supported assertions.
Theology, by contrast, my allow for some variation in interpretations but can't allow for any questioning of the truth of its dogmas. You may argue what the Bible is really saying but you can't question whether the Bible has any merit as a source of revelation.
You've committed the fallacy of a false comparison.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
