A general topic on "what started it all..."

[fr0d0]

And the other exists on facts

[Edwardo Piet]

I would think dealing with facts is rational. And the other deals with...hmm..God I think..And this is studied...it's is studied..um...Studied by the methods of..well - how it's studied is by?...It's studied through...(?)

???

Can you remind me again? I think I forgot how theology at all studies anything, or how I (or anyone else) would go about actually legitimately studying it as a genuine subject. I think it completely slipped my mind(!)

EvF

[Faith Tester]

If those were the people that started the Christian religion then why does the book say the opposite? That doesn't make any sense. I think you unfairly judge.

Theology isn't science.

First, I must say that I was not confining myself to Christian religion, I was talking about religion in general. What I meant to say was that the humans wrote down these various scriptures (Bible, Koran etc). Then the founders of these religions came up with absurd explanations regarding various natural phenomena. Theology is not science. How do you prove or disprove it then??? Sorry if I am an ignorant being, but I do have the right to knowledge. Otherwise, on the day of resurrection I will tell your Christian God (or the Muslim Allah) that I did not know about your commands (or even that you existed) so how can you punish me for being ignorant?

[fr0d0]

What I meant to say was that the humans wrote down these various scriptures (Bible, Koran etc). Then the founders of these religions came up with absurd explanations regarding various natural phenomena.

No, people came up with explanations afterwards that were illogical. That doesn't detract from the original.

Theology is not science. How do you prove or disprove it then???

With theology.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Theology is not science. How do you prove or disprove it then???

With theology.

How do you prove or disprove theology? With theology? Ever heard of circular reasoning?

Kyu

[fr0d0]

So do you not prove or disprove scientific theory using scientific methodology?

[Kyuuketsuki]

So do you not prove or disprove scientific theory using scientific methodology?

Nothing is proven in science (proof implies an absolute and nothing in science is held to be absolute), the evidence is inductive i.e. an explanation fits an accumulating mass of observations ... even the scientific method is bound by that concept.

Religion has NOTHING like that!

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

Theology is not science. How do you prove or disprove it then???

With theology.

How do you prove or disprove theology? With theology? Ever heard of circular reasoning?

Kyu

If that's circular than mathematics is circular. In fact a body of tenets, such as theology or mathematics, can be disproven through showing inconsistencies between tenets. In fact this is a valid and widely used method for disproving proposed tenets in mathematics.

Furthermore big parts of mahematics are deductional and mathematics is part of science, so science is partly deductional.

[Kyuuketsuki]

How do you prove or disprove theology? With theology? Ever heard of circular reasoning?

If that's circular than mathematics is circular. In fact a body of tenets, such as theology or mathematics, can be disproven through showing inconsistencies between tenets. In fact this is a valid and widely used method for disproving proposed tenets in mathematics.

If you wish ... I disagree.

Furthermore big parts of mahematics are deductional and mathematics is part of science, so science is partly deductional.

That could be said of any endeavour that uses math (which as you imply is not strictly speaking science), the math is merely a tool ... the evidence is empirical, accumulated and inductive.

Kyu

[Dharan]

---

If science doesnt know, then why arent scientists more open minded toward religion? Is it easier to not know? than to go down the path of learning to 'know'?


Dharan, you are claiming that the religion is the path of learning. I think all religion has done is that religion has provided non-scientific answers to scientific questions and proclaimed them as universal facts.

Faith Tester,

No, actually Im not defending religion. Someone once said that if scientists like accumulating (but unproven) data they will call it 'case study'; when they dont like an idea, they call it 'anecdote'.

Religion may be confused, misguided or misdirected, but that isnt to say that the whole experience is non-sense. I'm saying let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

---

I would think dealing with facts is rational. And the other deals with...hmm..God I think..And this is studied...it's is studied..um...Studied by the methods of..well - how it's studied is by?...It's studied through...(?)

???

Can you remind me again? I think I forgot how theology at all studies anything, or how I (or anyone else) would go about actually legitimately studying it as a genuine subject. I think it completely slipped my mind(!)

EvF

EVF,

Theology can be a rigorous and intense discipline, despite the way the mainstream press and some outspoken individuals portray themselves. Check out the 'methods' employed by thelogians at UNC-Chapel Hill. Errudite, learned, considerate, and rigorous. Religion obviously represents a huge paradigm in western thought, and there are dozens of peer reviewed journals dealing with the intricate subject matter. They deconstruct, triangulate, verify, reconstruct, and pick to death every reference in prominent religious texts. Picture a scientist's rendition of the facial features from a skull. This is science, not art. You with me? Now this is similar to what these scholars perform on text. These guys are not exactly Ned Flanders .

---

[quote='fr0d0' pid='23138' dateline='1247857594']
If those were the people that started the Christian religion then why does the book say the opposite? That doesn't make any sense. I think you unfairly judge.

Theology isn't science.

First, I must say that I was not confining myself to Christian religion, I was talking about religion in general. What I meant to say was that the humans wrote down these various scriptures (Bible, Koran etc). Then the founders of these religions came up with absurd explanations regarding various natural phenomena. Theology is not science. How do you prove or disprove it then??? Sorry if I am an ignorant being, but I do have the right to knowledge. Otherwise, on the day of resurrection I will tell your Christian God (or the Muslim Allah) that I did not know about your commands (or even that you existed) so how can you punish me for being ignorant?

---

Faith Tester,

"Humans wrote down these scriptures and founders came up with absurd explanations..."

True. No argument there. but science has also come up with some absurd explanations, but these explanations helped future scientists frame and test the work. religious experience is already offering anecdote for testing (see temporal lobe studies as the "God spot'). There are also some empirical studies on near death experience. I think its pretty interesting. Maybe we disservice ourselves when we limit our thinking to empirical rationalism.

---

So do you not prove or disprove scientific theory using scientific methodology?

Nothing is proven in science (proof implies an absolute and nothing in science is held to be absolute), the evidence is inductive i.e. an explanation fits an accumulating mass of observations ... even the scientific method is bound by that concept.

Religion has NOTHING like that!

Kyu

KYU,

I'm not so sure I would go that far. See my earlier comments about the discipline of theology. Scholars wouldnt last long without a method to assess, scrutinize, and otherwise deconstruct all types of scriptural texts.