Theology and Sociology

[SimpleCaveman]

Good <insert time of day>, Grand Nudger,

You may not believe that an arrow of progress is necessary (or necessarily exists), but it would seem to be the case that you believe it does exist if..say, contemporary christians have it "truer" than pagan greeks, who had it "truer" than animist cave dwellers.  That's time and truth (seemingly) flowing in tandem.

First, new is not always better. Many times, it’s not. Each thing must be judged on its own merit to determine its worth.

Next, I would hesitate to say “truer” here. If someone determines something that is true, then true it is. Another person, then or later, may build on that truth, finding another truth. Someone else, further on up the road, may come up with something that seems true but upon further investigation turns out to not be. There can be “little truths” that would change, sure, such as the best way to get to Canfield. But not the big truths we are talking about in Theology, Why are we here? What created all of this? What is our purpose? And, well, you get the idea.

Maybe, trying to work with your idea, if there is an “arrow of progress” (still not liking the phrase, but let’s use it for now), it would be how much truth we find. It’s like how we grow in our knowledge of mathematics, for example. 2i*2i=-4 is not any truer than 2+2 = 4. It’s an additional truth that expands our knowledge. This arrow is certainly not a linear arrow, always progressing “forward”, since there are mistakes, diversions, and lies.

I don’t mean to be difficult, but I have some questions about parts of what you said.

The proviso that an idea must fit with our current understanding of reality is both doing alot of work..and,

Maybe I’m reading too much here. Why would it be “a lot of work” for an idea to be required to fit our current understanding in order to be true?

Had they not erred so little, then, we may not be standing on the mountain of their compounded misperceptions today.  For better and for worse.  

Had who not erred so little? Current theistic religions or past theistic religions? What do you see as current versus past?

If they “erred so little”, then how are there misperceptions that have compounded into such mountains? Maybe I’m missing something here.

If we're willing to propose natural theology, a god of nature - that is to see what can and cannot be said about what is and is not true of the sacred with respect to only what our senses can directly apprehend, then why not a god of nature...and...are we sure there's a difference?

Was there a typo here? You say the same thing twice. Did you mean “a god from nature” in the first part? That would make more sense. Natural theology is a branch of theology that explores what can be known about God using reason alone without means such as religious experience.

Or, if we prefer, what is the impetus to go further....or, as would inevitably be the case, to assert something which is demonstrably untrue at least according to our apprehensions of nature - in the face of how things are...as opposed to how we assert or believe they should be?

I don’t see a valid reason to assert something which is demonstrably untrue. What do you mean here?

[SimpleCaveman]

Glad you found it pocaracas. Hope you’ve been doing well.

I would have thought that how people came up with gods would also be part of sociology, under the heading of human behaviour.

Yeah, we’re probably getting into distinctions that are beyond me. I’m just saying what I think sounds right. I could be wrong.

I guess I’d make the distinction between how they came to think that gods exist (Oh, look at the stars) and the logic they used to think about those gods (the big star must be a god because …). I may or may not have said it well before. Assuming I’m saying it well now.

You guys spoke about truth seeming to be ever improving, but then would that mean that Islam is a superior truth to Christianity?

See this post in response to The Grand Nudger. I would not truth improves in the way I take you to mean.

I dislike it when religions use the word truth... More so when the capitalize it, as though there's a grand truth that only the religion is privy to.
Reality is a good word to represent the real, as opposition to the imaginary.
Truth, to me is simply a classification of a statement, or collection of statements, as accurately representing reality... or as accurately as we humans can.

Interesting. Yes, I think I would agree with your definition of Truth (italicized above). Yes, if a religion says that they have the truth and others can’t know it, then it’s probably a scam. The things that a religion says are true representations of reality should be evaluated with our Reason. We should use logic, science, philosophy, agreed upon assumptions (just throwing things out that make sense to me) to evaluate what is said.

So, if reality includes a god, then I'd like to know that.

Yes! Those who don’t even care about the question, baffle me. Some of them are in my family. Personally, I think they’re just lazy. (my family, that is)

If belief is required (ignoring solipsism for practicality) then that accuracy of any statement made about the divine cannot be ascertained. Thus far, all claims of existing divinities that I've come across rely on belief, so I'm tempted to exclude them from the realm of reality, and thus include them in the realm of the imaginary.

Yeah, this is a tough one. Sometimes the crux of the matter, or the greatest stumbling block. There are parts of Catholicism that I assent to because of authority and not by reason of their intrinsic evidence. (the definition of belief) Frankly, that’s true of a lot of things. I believe the authority that tells me that there’s a horrible war going on in the Sudan, even though I do not have intrinsic evidence.

There are many other parts of Catholicism that I assent to because I do have evidence, be that intrinsic, logical, or experiential. (may be others. Not sure)

Contrary to what some may think I’m not here to convince anyone that Catholicism is true. I doubt it would work. Certainly, I have no authority and the Church certainly doesn’t seem to have authority. I am here for the fun of engaging in these kinds of conversations. If I can explain things about the Church or related topics (there’s a lot of confusion out there), and can learn about things myself (there’s a lot of confusion in here), then all the better.

To sum up my thoughts on this last part, I think using reason to evaluate claims is the right way to decide whether it is true or not. I think that including all those claims in the realm of the imaginary just because there is a component that isn’t evaluable at first is to throw out the baby with the bath water.

[The Grand Nudger]

First, new is not always better. Many times, it’s not. Each thing must be judged on its own merit to determine its worth.

Next, I would hesitate to say “truer” here. If someone determines something that is true, then true it is. Another person, then or later, may build on that truth, finding another truth. Someone else, further on up the road, may come up with something that seems true but upon further investigation turns out to not be. There can be “little truths” that would change, sure, such as the best way to get to Canfield. But not the big truths we are talking about in Theology, Why are we here? What created all of this? What is our purpose? And, well, you get the idea.

Maybe, trying to work with your idea, if there is an “arrow of progress” (still not liking the phrase, but let’s use it for now), it would be how much truth we find. It’s like how we grow in our knowledge of mathematics, for example. 2i*2i=-4 is not any truer than 2+2 = 4. It’s an additional truth that expands our knowledge. This arrow is certainly not a linear arrow, always progressing “forward”, since there are mistakes, diversions, and lies.

I don’t mean to be difficult, but I have some questions about parts of what you said.

Animists had some truth, pagan greeks added to that, christians have even more.  Or maybe christianity is a mistake, diversion, or lie.  We're on the same page.

Maybe I’m reading too much here. Why would it be “a lot of work” for an idea to be required to fit our current understanding in order to be true?

"Doing alot of work" as in a short declarative that's hiding a laundry list of assumptions.  For example.  Our current understanding of reality is post-christian.  If an idea fitting with our current understanding of reality is one of your metrics then christianity fails.  Somehow...though, I think you must mean something else and a whole lot else. You're not here to tell us how christianity fails as an idea because it does not represent our current understanding of reality.

Had who not erred so little? Current theistic religions or past theistic religions? What do you see as current versus past?

If they “erred so little”, then how are there misperceptions that have compounded into such mountains? Maybe I’m missing something here.

Pick anyone, really.  Especially if you think they had less of some x.  It's fairly easy to see how even small things can multiply into larger difficulties.  If you're wrong about how fast you're going that's one thing.  If you're wrong about how fast you're going and how fast something else is going....it starts to get dicey in more than just two ways.  The central mistake of theism is nothing if not an earnest one.  It's when we combine and retain mistakes about the nature of the sacred that it gets wildly out of hand...and pretty quick.  At least in my opinion.

Was there a typo here? You say the same thing twice. Did you mean “a god from nature” in the first part? That would make more sense. Natural theology is a branch of theology that explores what can be known about God using reason alone without means such as religious experience.

No typo, stressing the word for a different sense.  Natural theology tells us about natures god - or so it says...but..perhaps., it just tells us about nature?  When we ask ourselves "What do we worship?"  -The thing that created us.  Well..that'd be nature.  It really did that and I think it's pretty amazing.  Ape thinks apes are cool, go figure.  When we try to imagine the powers that gods have we imagine them as having the power of storms and floods and meteors and plagues and earthquakes - but also of life and babies and growth and wealth - whatever that means to us.  Of terror and of beauty. Well, that's nature again.  All of that.  

I don’t see a valid reason to assert something which is demonstrably untrue. What do you mean here?

Every religion has a vision of how the world should be.  It usually isn't that way when we formulate the idea, lol.  Do you think that something about natural theology or just a god of nature cosigns those rather elaborate constructs?  Say we walk out into nature and we see a bloodbath.  Stuff getting eaten alive asshole first on a good day.  We think..no...no, it shouldn't be this way.  We won't be living like this if we can help it.  If something about natural theology or a god of nature -did- cosign that idea, what could a god possibly add to the natural conclusion?  Are we only not going to be living like that if there is also a god..or is that question god nuetral?  The god detail redundant and non-operative. From the other end, if we chain a god to a natural theology then don't we run the risk of proving our god false every single time we learn something new about nature - or that we had been wrong about nature before?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To sum up my thoughts on this last part, I think using reason to evaluate claims is the right way to decide whether it is true or not. I think that including all those claims in the realm of the imaginary just because there is a component that isn’t evaluable at first is to throw out the baby with the bath water.

We don't have the tools to evaluate a god. We only have the claims of other humans. So we are in the null set. {∅}

It's rather like judging a book by its cover because we are unable to open it.

[SimpleCaveman]

"Doing alot of work" as in a short declarative that's hiding a laundry list of assumptions.  For example.  Our current understanding of reality is post-christian.  If an idea fitting with our current understanding of reality is one of your metrics then christianity fails.  Somehow...though, I think you must mean something else and a whole lot else.  You're not here to tell us how christianity fails as an idea because it does not represent our current understanding of reality.

Ah, very good point. Thank you for correcting me.

Part of me wants to qualify the “current understanding of reality,” since our current understanding is pretty messed up. However, we’ll go the other way. Each side of the “equation,” Christian ideas and post-christian understanding, has to stand up to the same metric.

Pick anyone, really.  Especially if you think they had less of some x.  It's fairly easy to see how even small things can multiply into larger difficulties.  

Cool. I pick atheism.

No typo, stressing the word for a different sense.  Natural theology tells us about natures god - or so it says...but..perhaps., it just tells us about nature?  When we ask ourselves "What do we worship?"  -The thing that created us.  Well..that'd be nature.  It really did that and I think it's pretty amazing.  Ape thinks apes are cool, go figure.  When we try to imagine the powers that gods have we imagine them as having the power of storms and floods and meteors and plagues and earthquakes - but also of life and babies and growth and wealth - whatever that means to us.  Of terror and of beauty.  Well, that's nature again.  All of that.  

Is it condescending to say that you are poetic? Probably. Never mind.

Yes, Nature is amazing. What created Nature?

Every religion has a vision of how the world should be.  It usually isn't that way when we formulate the idea, lol.  

lol, no, it isn’t! I’m not sure how the world should be is Theology. Not trying to be pedantic here. You’re talking about Natural Theology in which we use our reason to know things about God. I don’t think (could be wrong) it would take us to the level of what the world should be. I think it stops at reasoning that there is a spirit being and some things about it. If you want, I can do some research to see how, or if, Natural Theology goes farther.

Stuff getting eaten alive asshole first on a good day.

That’s a good day?! Yikes!

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, very good point. Thank you for correcting me.

Part of me wants to qualify the “current understanding of reality,” since our current understanding is pretty messed up. However, we’ll go the other way. Each side of the “equation,” Christian ideas and post-christian understanding, has to stand up to the same metric.

That's the whole problem, though, isn't it?  That our current understanding of reality is post-christian (even to christians...) is an effect of christian ideas having already failed by that metric.

Cool. I pick atheism.

You may not know what atheism is.  It literally can't be inaccurate or false or lacking in any non novel sense as it's a single line item describing whether a person does or does not believe in gods.   But sure..what truths do you think theists possess that atheists do not, such that christians possess more of whatever that is?

Is it condescending to say that you are poetic? Probably. Never mind.

Yes, Nature is amazing. What created Nature?

Nature yet again, in the only way that it even makes sense to ask or answer that question.  I assume for generosities sake that you're not a creationist?  

lol, no, it isn’t! I’m not sure how the world should be is Theology. Not trying to be pedantic here. You’re talking about Natural Theology in which we use our reason to know things about God. I don’t think (could be wrong) it would take us to the level of what the world should be. I think it stops at reasoning that there is a spirit being and some things about it. If you want, I can do some research to see how, or if, Natural Theology goes farther.

Our ideas about gods don't -have- to be moral or normative ideas, no, they might just be superstitions about the number and proper classification of various pixies out there in nature - but religions must be and so, any theology of any religion has those implications and those goals.  You're a catholic, no?  What do you think the church has been trying to do all these centuries?  If natural theology doesn't support any of these things - the way of allegedly knowing god by reason which you've said is the way to do that...then it seems like natural theology can't back up whatever the oughts in your christian religion are.

Ironically, a god of nature or an actual natural theology (I use this to differentiate between braindead and deeply motivated mischaracterizations of christian apologetics as legitimate natural theology) could provide those items.  Or at least there's no obvious reason that it couldn't. What you're telling us here is that your god facts and moral facts are not natural facts.  That they are of another kind not found in mere reality, in nature. That there really is no such thing as a natural teleology, for example.

Stuff getting eaten alive asshole first on a good day.

That’s a good day?! Yikes!

Indeed, and since we're doing natural theology and not christian apologetics -called- natural theology, can we conclude on the basis of this that this is the kind of shit the spirit being -likes- and thinks should be...or will we immediately reject natural theology at any moment where it's rigorous and consistent application was devastating to our christian superstitions or wishes? To use another fun example. It was (or must have been) god that made the frogs gay. Does god like homosexual sex or does he hate frogs?

[SimpleCaveman]

That's the whole problem, though, isn't it?  That our current understanding of reality is post-christian (even to christians...) is an effect of christian ideas having already failed by that metric.

No, not at all. As an example, the military code / life is a good one. If someone betrays the code and leaves that life becoming a fat druggie or a hired killer of innocents, it’s not that the code failed. It’s that they rejected the code for their own self interests. Catholic theology didn’t fail. Rather people wanted it their way. Our society has moved into a “theology” where we are our own god.

Nature yet again, in the only way that it even makes sense to ask or answer that question.

Not sure how that makes sense. Nature made Nature? I guess you could say that world now comes from the world a moment ago, but that only goes back so far. What then?

If natural theology doesn't support any of these things - the way of allegedly knowing god by reason which you've said is the way to do that...then it seems like natural theology can't back up whatever the oughts in your christian religion are.

What you're telling us here is that your god facts and moral facts are not natural facts.  That they are of another kind not found in mere reality, in nature.  That there really is no such thing as a natural teleology, for example.  

Natural Theology is just one of the partitions of the broader field of Theology. Maybe even the first step because through our natural reason we can know that God exists (plus some other things about Him). Knowing God by their reason is something that everyone can do.

But Natural Theology can only take us so far. A divine being would be so different from us that we can only know so much by our reason alone. After that, we have to have revelation. The being has to reveal itself to us. So, no, it is not a “natural fact.”

The moral side is, the way I understand it, similar. There is a Natural Law and there is revealed Moral Law. The universe is orderly and rational. We are rational creatures. There is a lot we are able to rationally discern about what we should and shouldn’t do. For example, those who have never heard of the Ten Commandments already know that it’s wrong to murder – even if they do it anyway, or even if they rationalize a certain type of murder as not really murder. (taken from catholic.com)

Natural teleology is a third thing that you’re throwing in there. I take that to mean a purpose that we can discern with our Reason. If that’s what you mean, then yes, there is a natural teleology. We can clearly see that we want more both in quantity and quality. We want better than we have it, or why care about “what constitutes a meaningful existence, a just society or an ethical decision”? We want to have more than what we have now. This comes out in good ways by hard work, having kids, building a business. It comes out in bad ways by addictions and greed.

This innate desire for the more and better cannot be satisfied by any material thing. I’m not saying that we can jump to the idea that God exists from this, but it is consistent.

Pax et bonum

[SimpleCaveman]

We don't have the tools to evaluate a god. We only have the claims of other humans. So we are in the null set. {∅}

It's rather like judging a book by its cover because we are unable to open it.

Hmm, some math skills, I see. Okay, I’ll have to up my game. :-)

Again, it’s the either/or scenario, and I don’t agree. We can evaluate the humans. We can evaluate their claims. And I think a person can “evaluate” God in their own life. He says things and He should stick to them. In my life, He has done that. I’m not saying you should believe because of that. Rather it’s one of the many, many reasons that I believe.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the whole problem, though, isn't it?  That our current understanding of reality is post-christian (even to christians...) is an effect of christian ideas having already failed by that metric.

No, not at all. As an example, the military code / life is a good one. If someone betrays the code and leaves that life becoming a fat druggie or a hired killer of innocents, it’s not that the code failed. It’s that they rejected the code for their own self interests. Catholic theology didn’t fail. Rather people wanted it their way. Our society has moved into a “theology” where we are our own god.

"Fat druggie" is fine.  It breaks no military code - I have to wonder why it's included.  Again, catholic theology must have failed if our current understanding of reality is post christian...which it is...even to catholics.  I don't know why you're trying to salvage it now.  You misspoke.  It might be true, but you sure as shit didn't mean to say it and you definitely meant something else, and alot else, by it.

Dude I speak this language.  How much time are you going to spend pretending I'm crazy for hearing what you say?

Not sure how that makes sense. Nature made Nature? I guess you could say that world now comes from the world a moment ago, but that only goes back so far. What then?

Correct. Nature made nature, or nature needs no creator.  If this doesn't make sense..then I guess you would also agree that equivalent beliefs about god are insensible.  So.  Who created god?  I'll wait.

Natural Theology is just one of the partitions of the broader field of Theology. Maybe even the first step because through our natural reason we can know that God exists (plus some other things about Him). Knowing God by their reason is something that everyone can do.

But Natural Theology can only take us so far. A divine being would be so different from us that we can only know so much by our reason alone. After that, we have to have revelation. The being has to reveal itself to us. So, no, it is not a “natural fact.”

The moral side is, the way I understand it, similar. There is a Natural Law and there is revealed Moral Law. The universe is orderly and rational. We are rational creatures. There is a lot we are able to rationally discern about what we should and shouldn’t do. For example, those who have never heard of the Ten Commandments already know that it’s wrong to murder – even if they do it anyway, or even if they rationalize a certain type of murder as not really murder. (taken from catholic.com)

Natural teleology is a third thing that you’re throwing in there. I take that to mean a purpose that we can discern with our Reason. If that’s what you mean, then yes, there is a natural teleology. We can clearly see that we want more both in quantity and quality. We want better than we have it, or why care about “what constitutes a meaningful existence, a just society or an ethical decision”? We want to have more than what we have now. This comes out in good ways by hard work, having kids, building a business. It comes out in bad ways by addictions and greed.

This innate desire for the more and better cannot be satisfied by any material thing. I’m not saying that we can jump to the idea that God exists from this, but it is consistent.

Pax et bonum

Boooooo!  You bring up natural theology and then when someone actually does natural theology you shit on it. Why? Because you don't believe in it, especially when it shits on your christian theology.

Meanwhile, I don't need your garbage christian theology to be true to know and satisfy my natural teleological mission. Rightly......or wrongly....