next »

[dark_globe]

("the world is a disc floating on a turtle's back" .

I've always wondered: what's the turtle standing on?

[akimbo]

I've always wondered: what's the turtle standing on?

Principle.

[dark_globe]

I've always wondered: what's the turtle standing on?

Principle.

Thank God. I thought someone was going to tell me "another turtle."

And then I'd have to ask what that turtle was standing on.

[invinoveritas]

hvernon,

True....a good number of scientific claims since Aristotle have been proven wrong.  This is hardly an objection to science as a legitimate source of knowledge however.  In fact, its part of science itself....science is not dogmatic, unlike the religious fundamentalism you equated it with.   

Many religious beliefs are as silly as the turtle example you provided.  I'm glad you used that example because it actually speaks against religious attempts to explain the natural world.  The turtle supporting the world is just as baseless an explanation as 'Adam and Eve' and many other mainstream religious beliefs.  Your example speaks against religion and does nothing to discredit science. 

And to be sure, Aristotle's acceptance of Empedocles' doctrine of the four elements was based on empirical observation and the lack of instrumentation to see otherwise at the time....and that's where the difference lies.  The only reason you reject it now is because science has proven to you otherwise.  So you have actually based your judgment of it as false on those 'epistemological rules' that you suggested are arbitrary.  Your argument, in short, is self-defeating.

Anyways, your equivocation of religious fundamentalism with science is absurd. Your assumption that science rests upon some kind of 'blind faith' in certain epistemological rules is simply false.   What are these 'epistemological rules' you are referring to?....math? You betray your own reason when you suggest that the basis of the scientific enterprise is somehow arbitrary or on a par with religious dogmatism.  I don't think you honestly believe that.  Name me one of the 'theological truths' that you speak of and we'll put it to test....

[husqvarna]

I think you're misunderstanding what I was trying to say.  I was saying that if you're talking about the world-on-a-turtle type of truth, then yes, you are right.  I certainly meant to concede those religious "truths" and admit that science does a better job.  I was also trying to say that they were pre-scientific science, in a way, so it makes sense that they would be disproved by science.  Your distinction between that sort of myth and the four elements is a good point to make, though.  You do see in Aristotle the beginnings of a rationalist refutation of many of the pre-socratic myths. 

I was only trying to equate a particular understanding of science with fundamentalism...

Besides this, though, how can you scientifically prove me wrong if I tell you that the distinction of the Holy Spirit's spiration "ex patre" or "ex patre filioque" is small yet important because of its implications for both subordinationism within the immanent trinity and the danger of subsequent heavy-handed christologies?  You can't.  You'll either leave that discussion to the theologians or dismiss it as "imaginary".  In either case, you're not making a very strong stand for science as the most useful discipline for pursuing knowledge of the world unless you rule out theological truth from the beginning because of the epistemological rules you draw up, in which case... of course you're going to win the argument.  Religious people can do that too... we call it fundamentalism.

Science which goes about its business and allows theology to go about its business shouldn't be equated with fundamentalism.  Only that science which rules out a priori non-scientific knowledge of the world.  As you didn't interact with my filioque example I don't know how exactly you'd respond to it, so I wouldn't necessarily call you a "scientific fundamentalist".  To give an example, if Dawkins (and I've never wasted the time to read him extensively so I might be misrepresenting him) rules out the existence of God based upon scientific evidence, I think he's being a fundamentalist, because there is no way to scientifically demonstrate that- you simply have to refuse to accept it "because". 

So I wasn't trying to pin down science in toto with these accusations.  If you want to discuss your challenge re: the filioque in particular, go for it.  That will be my "theological truth" that we can put to the test.

[dogvomit]

{Science isn't "All that" sweetheart.
Religion can stand on its own as a discipline without the need to compare it to science.
And if students want to learn ABOUT a religion then they should be in university. If they want to learn THROUGH a religion then they should go to seminary or whatever. I think you have things backwards.}

Religious Studies is of course a discipline.  I don't see it as backwards, however.  IF you want to learn about being a Baptist, then you should go to a Baptist College.  If you want to learn about Religion as a discipline or an area of study and concentrate on the "baptist religion" then you could easily go to any school. 

Religious Studies is not learning "to be a good member of a religion." However, we cannot be certain which angle the author of this question was addressing as many different kinds of people with different levels of academic experience post on this forum.  (some aren't academics!).

This is the dicotomy I was portraying.  I can see this question meaning either thing. 
Did the author of the question intend us to take a course on being a good member of a religion, or a course about the study of religion.

I guarantee you that I have seen this question posed before, with the questioneer meaning we should all take courses in "their" religion. 

[dogvomit]

Where is the line drawn between myth and allegory? 

Many old testament tales are posed as allegorical, meaning they are intended to teach a concept through the use of a story that was known to be fiction (or loosely based on an unexplainable event) when it was construed.  These allegories may have later been believed by many, but today have again been returned to their original status based on study of history. 

It is my perception that this is a little different from a myth which was widely believed as a truth since its inception. 

Do these two things overlap or intersect?  Or are the essentially the same thing? 

[merce]

Where is the line drawn between myth and allegory? 

These two types of literature are not related I don't think.
An allegory is an allegory.
A myth, on the other hand, well, that's mythology.
They aren't on a continuum with a line dividing them somewhere.
That's like
where's the line between a play and a sonnet.
weird.

[invinoveritas]

hvernon,

Ok.  I disagree with 2 of your assertions in the last post.  First, you said that "Science which goes about its business and allows theology to go about its business shouldn't be equated with fundamentalism."  Yes....of course.  But your statement strongly implies that any time science says anything about 'theology' or 'interferes with the business of theology' it is analogous to fundamentalism.  This implication is simply false.  Theology often makes claims about the natural world and science is not being 'fundamentalist' when it challenges or refutes these claims.

Second, I think a person cannot know whether or not reading the work of a scholar is a 'waste of time' unless they've actually read it.  It was nice of you to admit that you are unfamiliar with Dawkins' work, but quite prejudicial to judge it a 'waste of time' I think.  And Dawkins does not completely rule out the existence of God.  The chapter in The God Delusion entitled: 'Why there almost certainly is no God' sums up his position quite clearly in the very title of it. 

As far as the 'filioque' goes, I think you are referring to a theological controversy rather than a theological truth.  It is a debate over the nicene creed, specifically about the Holy Spirit 'proceeding' (whatever that means) from the Father/Son.  How can this possibly qualify as a 'truth'?  Debates are not true or false....they're debates!

The only possible way I think you could have meant it is that you think one of these interpretations is true and the other is false.  Let's suppose you claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the father and the son is true.  Ok.  How do you know?  Well....I imagine it would have to be this option because if the father and the son are one, then something proceeding from either of them would have to proceed from both (because they are one).  But they are also supposed to one with the Holy Spirit (the trinity).  So how does something proceed from itself?  Ahh...divine mystery!

What nonsense!  The only possible 'truth' that might be found here is a logical one by way of identity and modes ponens.  If A = B and if A then C, then if B then C.  But the whole thing presupposes something incomprehensible to begin with!  And substituting supernatural beings for the letters does not make it a 'theo-logical' truth.  There is no truth here at all other than the laws of logic. 

[husqvarna]

But your statement strongly implies that any time science says anything about 'theology' or 'interferes with the business of theology' it is analogous to fundamentalism.  This implication is simply false.  Theology often makes claims about the natural world and science is not being 'fundamentalist' when it challenges or refutes these claims.

I'm trying to say that when religion dismisses science because science isn't religious, then religion is fundamentalism.  When science dismisses religion because religion isn't scientific, then science is fundamentalism.  While I'd be in disagreement if you challenge or refute various theological claims that I think are justified, that would be fair enough so long as you aren't dismissing them simply because they're theological.  From the other perspective, I might disagree with evolutionary theory because of the problems it poses for theological anthropology or hamartiology and that's fine, we simply have a disagreement.  If I say, "The LORD says that everything was created in 6 days and you haven't cited the LORD in your peer-reviewed article!"... that's where we get into fundamentalism.  And I'm not trying to demonize fundamentalists either, I just don't think it's the most fruitful way to discourse on this. 

Second, I think a person cannot know whether or not reading the work of a scholar is a 'waste of time' unless they've actually read it.  It was nice of you to admit that you are unfamiliar with Dawkins' work, but quite prejudicial to judge it a 'waste of time' I think.  And Dawkins does not completely rule out the existence of God.  The chapter in The God Delusion entitled: 'Why there almost certainly is no God' sums up his position quite clearly in the very title of it. 

Fair enough.  I recongize that my feelings about Dawkins aren't especially mature and if really pinned to the wall about it I would look into things more.  But even the example you brought up demonstrates that he's not giving theology a fair shot... when you talk about probability with God, or even the "God hypothesis", you are from the beginning thinking about the issue the wrong way.  (this is actually why I did not mention this nuance in Dawkins, because it doesn't really put us in any better of a position)  I am constantly torn between not wasting my time on someone like Dawkins because there is so much else to do, and reading people like him because, for better or worse, these are the ideas that are floating around.

As far as the 'filioque' goes, I think you are referring to a theological controversy rather than a theological truth.  It is a debate over the nicene creed, specifically about the Holy Spirit 'proceeding' (whatever that means) from the Father/Son.  How can this possibly qualify as a 'truth'?  Debates are not true or false....they're debates!

Okay.  I figured framing various important aspects of the debate constituted "truth" enough. 

The only possible way I think you could have meant it is that you think one of these interpretations is true and the other is false.  Let's suppose you claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the father and the son is true.  Ok.  How do you know?  Well....I imagine it would have to be this option because if the father and the son are one, then something proceeding from either of them would have to proceed from both (because they are one).  But they are also supposed to one with the Holy Spirit (the trinity).  So how does something proceed from itself? 

You've also left out the scriptural witness, which both sides of the issue wrestle with in defending their view.  I would be curious about how you feel about this.  I think that's where the rubber meets the road on this whole religion/science debate... when various sources of knowledge are dismissed as superfluous or taken seriously as a source of truth.  Also, the manner in which I framed the filioque set you up better for arguing the Eastern view on the matter, but nonetheless...

Ahh...divine mystery!

What nonsense! 

Although your response to me was very considered, this is where I usually end up being wary of those who say they have let theology speak its fair share before finding it wanting... I'm not offended by the comment, I just think that anyone can read something they don't understand and come to this conclusion.

The only possible 'truth' that might be found here is a logical one by way of identity and modes ponens.  If A = B and if A then C, then if B then C.  But the whole thing presupposes something incomprehensible to begin with!  And substituting supernatural beings for the letters does not make it a 'theo-logical' truth.  There is no truth here at all other than the laws of logic. 

This is precisely what a lot of philosophical theologians are doing with the doctrine of the Trinity, mostly now in relation to what divine personhood means rather than in relation to the filioque.  It's not that there is no truth but the laws of logic, but I do agree that simply doing this is inadequate.
---

Good discussion.  I'd be happy to pursue it further if you want, but we are getting way off topic from the original post.  Thanks for the probing questions, though.  I just jumped on a little sentence of yours and didn't mean to imply that I was pulling out my hair about it.  I think you were probably mostly talking about issues like the world-on-top-of-a-turtle, anyway, and on that we both agree in full.  What we disagree about is how many other theological statements are "world-on-top-of-a-turtle" truths.

[invinoveritas]

hvernon,

I understand your dislike of my calling it 'nonsense' and I think you're right to point out that I was dismissive without providing argument.  However, I think the modern mind has reached the point where extended arguments over this kind of thing are no longer necessary. 

You said: "I might disagree with evolutionary theory because of the problems it poses for theological anthropology or hamartiology and that's fine, we simply have a disagreement."
 
I also do not think that these issues can be dismissed as 'simply a disagreement'.  I do not wish to begin an extended debate over evolution because it is no longer necessary to pit science against theology in this regard.  Theology has already lost....that's not dogmatism; its simply true as any rational person can tell that has studied the debate objectively.  The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and theology has offered no viable refutation of it.  Theological anthropology is a joke.

You said: "the example you brought up demonstrates that he's not giving theology a fair shot... when you talk about probability with God, or even the "God hypothesis", you are from the beginning thinking about the issue the wrong way." 

Perhaps....how is the right way to think about the issue then?

I think you are right to point out "where the rubber meets the road on this whole religion/science debate... when various sources of knowledge are dismissed as superfluous or taken seriously as a source of truth."  This is one of the root issues.  I think science wins every time on this.  The systematic investigation of the world that science and reason has acheived certainly blows away a 'scriptual witness'.  Most theologians base their claims and interpretations on 'Biblical passages'.  While I find the Bible enlightening in some regards, it is riddled with inconsistencies and an incredibly weak source of authority for more reasons than I have the time to mention.

But yes...we have gotten far off topic and I too have appreciated the exchange.  Perhaps our discussion is actually at the core of the original matter because I think we've exposed why there is such controversy and tension about the topic itself. You are obviously much more tolerant/sympathetic to religion than I am, but I think I have good reason to unsympathetic.  I think that once you truly reflect and examine everything fairly, all of the world's major religions are not only false....they are dangerous.....  This is not scientific dogmatism.  This is a reasonable assessment of religion as a human phenomenon with a poor history and an inability to defend its assertions.

[concordancia]

You sir or ma'am have not yet been to a creationist museum. I must admit, that I myself learned the words uniformitarianism and catastropheism from children. But I must suggest you attend one of these fine institutions before making further arguments in the case.

(is their a formal address for "hu"?)

[husqvarna]

You said: "the example you brought up demonstrates that he's not giving theology a fair shot... when you talk about probability with God, or even the "God hypothesis", you are from the beginning thinking about the issue the wrong way." 

Perhaps....how is the right way to think about the issue then?

God is not a part of phenomenal reality in the same way that a rock or a dog is.  We have no analogous way of measuring God, accounting for the presence or absence of God, etc.  This means that talking about "probability" or "hypothesis" with regard to God is unfair... if God doesn't fit into the strictures of scientific investigation, then of course theology will lose every time if you frame investigation into the truth of God around these strictures.

Given this, some have come to conclude that there is no God.  It's perfectly acceptable that they do this, but if they back up their belief by laying down probable cause for asserting that there is "almost certainly no God", or basing their disbelief upon investigation into the "hypothesis" of God that finds the hypothesis wanting, then they're not really backing up their belief at all.  They're just saying that God is not knowable under these terms, which we have already established.  In scientific investigation this is not an issue because work is constantly being done within these terms.  This becomes a blindspot, however, when scientists try to step out of their own sphere of knowledge and declare, "Thus saith scientific objectivity" in a foreign land.

That's the easy part, though... you already granted me a "perhaps".  But what is the right way to think about the issue?

The concept of "fides quarens intellectum" is a good place to start.  Because the gatekeeper of responsible theological inquiry is faith, however, I don't think it's very productive to talk about it with someone who a priori rejects this starting point as valid.  But for personal investigation, I would start with parsing out what this will mean for subsequent scientific inquiry into the truth of God ("scientific" used broadly enough to fit the more traditional idea of "scientia").

[invinoveritas]

nomad,

If you are being sarcastic, then ha....that's kind of funny....irrationality reaches a point where ridicule is due.  If you are being serious, then that's hilarious.  Either way....thanks for making one of my points.

hvernon,

The only reason I'm responding to your last post is because many people read these threads and I fear that some might mistake your claims for a rational position on the matter.  I will explain why they are not.

First, a clearer statement of your position:

1. God is noumenal.  That is, beyond phenomenal reality.  You used Kantian terms for this, so one can only assume that you mean God is something beyond space and time and therefore, in short, incomprehensible to our rational faculties. You conclued from this assertion that any attempt to speak of the 'probability of God's existence' is unfair. (Unfair?...am I not playing according to your 'epistemological rules'?)

2. Although you offered no defense for your claim, your position assumes that God exists (even though you have admitted that God is incomprehensible).

3. You assert that scientists suffer from some kind of 'a blindspot'.  This is sheer prejudice which assumes that those who are not immersed in religious belief are somehow unable to offer any insight into religious beliefs or practices. 

4. Here's your rhetorical kicker: You said "the gatekeeper of responsible theological inquiry is faith."  And then you implied that I am someone with whom it is not worth discussing these matters because I reject supernatural explanations (with good reason).  In other words, 'I am not a 'responsible inquirer because I don't believe the same as you do'. 

Diffusing your rhetoric, here's what you really said:

1. God is incomprehensible.
2. I think God exists (even though I don't understand what I'm talking about....see #1).
3. All scientists are 'blinded' and therefore we shouldn't listen to them when it comes to religion.
4. Non-religious people are irresponsible.  Faith is the be-all end-all here.

Sorry hvernon, but your discourse has degenerated into that good old religious fundamentalism that you decried at the beginning of this discussion, whether you are aware of it or not.

I think it has become quite clear that you are an enemy of reason who is contemptuous of philosphical objections to your belief in God.  I think you are right in asserting that faith is the epistemological underpinning of Christianity.  I reject faith as a valid cognitive procedure.  You have misrepresented reason as a kind of 'special demonstration' that does not apply here.  Reason is not just one 'tool of thought' amongst many.  It is the whole toolbox.  By advocating that reason should be discarded when it comes to religion (the gatekeeper of responsible theological inquiry is faith, you said), you have suggested that reason is irresponsible and should be discarded.

When there exists a conflict between reason and religious dogma, (which you were forced to acknowledge) you attempted to assure me (and everyone reading) that this "apparent" conflict results from our insufficient understanding of divine truth.  When logic and consistency became too uncomfortable for you, you retreated to your incomprehensible God.

Your 'faith' is not a method.  It is unintelligible.  Faith as an alleged method of acquiring knowledge is completely ridiculous.  Yours is a defensive maneuver that wrongfully assumes there is no conflict between reason and faith.

Can you demonsrate that faith is capable of distinquishing truth from falsity? 

Nope.  Why am I so sure?  Because it is impossible....both logically and evidentially.  Your position on this matter is inherently irrational.
 

[husqvarna]

arete 1,

Sorry I couldn't help you more.  As I think I've always tried to say whenever religion comes up in the forum... I don't expect people to be convinced by my arguments or think that religion is anything but irrational.  I'm just trying to help people understand the structure of the inquiry, since that's my background.  Whatever they can helpfully take away from the conversation, I'm happy for them to take away.  I hope you didn't read my posts as lashing out at science, either.  For me to say that certain ways of knowing and thinking are inappropriate for certain lines of inquiry, I wasn't at all intending to demean scientific or any other inquiry.  Certainly none of my criticisms were attributed to all scientists- I was very specific about what was appropriate and inappropriate.

Of course I disagree with your assessment of my argument.  Hopefully for anyone who's interested in researching what I've introduced, though, I've pointed out enough places to start.  Checking some of my other posts about theology will be helpful as well.