Isn't Theology a Science?

[tonyrey]

That’s an unfathomable non-sequitur. Just because theology is guesswork, it doesn’t follow that materialism has the answer to everything.

It follows that you reject the reality of anything that is not material.

I note your clarification from the implied “in practice” to the explicit “in principle.” And you’re nearly right - materialism is the claim that there is nothing other than matter, its movement and modifications. This implies an in-principle ability to explain everything. And there’s nothing invalid about that idea.

Which confirms the point I have just made - that you reject the reality of anything that is not material…

 

[tonyrey]

If materialism accounts for the power of reason it destroys itself!

The theory of materialism implies that thought is reducible to interactions of energy which are not aware of what they are doing and have no insight or understanding. In other words reasoning is an illusion! We are no more than material objects which function mechanically.

Theology allows for the possibility of a Godless universe and decides that it is inadequate!

Decides on the basis of what we would like to be true, on the basis of massive anthropocentrism I think. It then provides an answer which can only be hoped for rather than trusted, because it is immune to evidence.

It decides on the basis of what we **know *to be true - that the success of science is due not to purposeless particles but rational beings.

Theologians do not claim to explain the nature of Ultimate Reality, i.e. how God exists whereas materialists claim to explain everything. Some scientists are in hot pursuit of a TOE!

Well theologians tread a fine and tactical line of ignorance then, in saying that there is this Ultimate Reality stuff called God, but actually we don’t know about it.Anyone who claims to understand the essential nature of Ultimate Reality is presumptuous and preposterous! *

This on the basis of testaments that a certain important tomb was empty at a certain crucial time!

Theism is not based on one Christian belief.

Even if materialists claimed to know everything, they at least do not fall victim to this further arrogance of claiming that their opponents or indeed everyone cannot understand what they do.

Why do you arrogantly assume theologians claim no one can understand what they do?

I would suggest that any such totality of explanation by science would be built up from the well-evidenced and would amount to substantiated claims of interrelation of physical things, rather than a top-down untestable metaphysics.

The totality of explanation by materialists certainly exceeds the totality of scientific evidence. Materialism is a classic example of “top-down untestable metaphysics”. Theism on the other hand is based on the testable evidence of our direct experience of ourselves and basic facts about the universe such as its orderliness, intelligibility and predictability, all of which are the postulates on which science is based.

We can be certain of their objectivity because they are not arbitrary mental constructs but consistent features of our perceptions. The success of science is a convincing refutation of solipsism.

I don’t think we can be certain of the objectivity of these values simply because we might all share them; we might all be imagining them.

Do you reject the objective value of truth? That would be in keeping with materialism!

Given the disagreement on what is ‘beauty’ or what is beautiful, it seems we don’t have this consensus anyway. In any case, you just said that we can only be certain of our minds, and now you say beauty is objective!

There is a consensus that beauty is a reflection of objective harmony. The fact that we can only be certain of our minds does not imply that our minds are not objectively real. On the contrary it means that our minds are the only objective reality of which we can be certain.

If this thing is objective, then we ought to trust that loads of other things are objectively there, which puts your original point about a rational Source onto shaky ground.

I have explained that we are justified in believing in the objective reality of material objects because of the consistency of our perceptions and the success of science. It does not alter the fact that our primary datum and sole certainty is our rational mind which is capable of astonishing achievements unparallelled by inanimate objects. The primary flaw of materialism is its rejection of the independence and power of reason.

If lots of things certainly, independently exist, why should we look at ourselves, at our own minds and say “Right. My rationality has got to be the most important thing in this vast universe of things, so I must have been created by a Source of all reason!” Why would a God be needed to provide for the truth of our perception, when you think objectivity can be established without God?

Our rationality is not the most important thing in the vast universe because the universe itself is based on rational principles. It is the order and intelligibility of the universe which requires explanation as well as our power of reason. Moreover, as Pascal noted, we know the universe exists but the universe doesn’t know we exist. Consciousness is the outstanding attribute of rational beings and it is an objective fact that also requires explanation. Since there is no reason to believe we are the sole rational beings theism is not anthropocentric but ratiocentric - unlike materialism which is eccentric in postulating irrational events as the centre of everything.

Also, science cannot refute the possibility that nothing objectively exists outside perception, it only gives us reason to believe that some things do exist independently.

Including independent minds with the power of reason without which science wouldn’t even exist!

 

[James1215]

The theory of materialism implies that thought is reducible to interactions of energy which are not aware of what they are doing and have no insight or understanding. In other words reasoning is an illusion! We are no more than material objects which function mechanically.

Nothing is made illusory simply because it is said to have a material basis, not even thought. You’re basically saying “The thing I don’t believe in would make us what we’re not!”, whereas I’m saying “The thing we could believe in explains what we are!”

What if it turns out that we are mechanical beings? The answer is to say “Wow, look at all we can do, even as mechanical beings!” As yet I don’t think anyone has made the notion of a soul logical to believe, so we are only left with the view that we are robots.

It decides on the basis of what we **know **to be true - that the success of science is due not to purposeless particles but rational beings.*Anyone who claims to understand the essential nature of Ultimate Reality is presumptuous and preposterous! *

Well as you/we don’t know it, we cannot presume to call it Ultimate Reality or give it the name of God.

Theism is not based on one Christian belief.

I’m glad you pointed that out; we’d have to have reasons to believe any single sort of theistic conception, given that many are possible.

Why do you arrogantly assume theologians claim no one can understand what they do?

It is entailed by what some of them say - God is ultimately a mystery, God is unknowable. Well in that case, no-one, not even they can understand.

The totality of explanation by materialists certainly exceeds the totality of scientific evidence. Materialism is a classic example of “top-down untestable metaphysics”. Theism on the other hand is based on the testable evidence of our direct experience of ourselves and basic facts about the universe such as its orderliness, intelligibility and predictability, all of which are the postulates on which science is based.

TOE is a scientific not a necessarily materialistic theory, and I agree that materialism may be a metaphysical system held in faith, but if that TOE ever emerges, it will be built from the bottom up. The TOE was the example initially brought up.

I would say that science is not based on the postulates of the orderliness and intelligibility of the universe, but instead our reason to believe in the hypotheses of science is based on the observation of orderliness. Rationality and order are not a priori but experienced.

Do you reject the objective value of truth? That would be in keeping with materialism!

The objective value of truth. I like truth quite a bit, but I cannot say that the value of truth objectively exists, can you?

There is a consensus that beauty is a reflection of objective harmony. The fact that we can only be certain of our minds does not imply that our minds are not objectively real. On the contrary it means that our minds are the only objective reality of which we can be certain.

If we can only be certain of our minds, we obviously are not certain about those values you posited - Beauty, truth, justice etc etc. However, it is upon the supposed objective existence of those values that you base your theological argument. Given that you say theology tests evidence, how can you arrange a test of things whose existence you are uncertain of? Would it not be begging the question so as to answer it? What if there are no objective values, but we don’t need them? That is just as consistent.

I have explained that we are justified in believing in the objective reality of material objects because of the consistency of our perceptions and the success of science. It does not alter the fact that our primary datum and sole certainty is our rational mind which is capable of astonishing achievements unparallelled by inanimate objects. The primary flaw of materialism is its rejection of the independence and power of reason.

I think you have shrunk the mind to just one thing it is capable of doing. You’re forgetting the power of our perceptions, which cannot be removed from the practice of science or theology. Indeed, I think we are nothing with reason alone, and all too frequently our default setting is not to reason well, even on simple tasks.

Our rationality is not the most important thing in the vast universe because the universe itself is based on rational principles. It is the order and intelligibility of the universe which requires explanation as well as our power of reason. Moreover, as Pascal noted, we know the universe exists but the universe doesn’t know we exist.

The universe is not necessarily based on rational principles; and it seems we deduce rational principles like laws of nature from the universe, not for it. What are any of these rational principles you think the universe is based on anyway? As we are a part of the universe, the universe knows itself.

 

[James1215]

Consciousness is the outstanding attribute of rational beings and it is an objective fact that also requires explanation. Since there is no reason to believe we are the sole rational beings theism is not anthropocentric but ratiocentric - unlike materialism which is eccentric in postulating irrational events as the centre of everything.

‘Consciousness is the outstanding attribute of rational beings’ sounds like a value, not a fact. We don’t need consciousness to act rationally, merely to be aware that we are acting rationally. What about all the non-conscious things the body does to stay alive? Those things seem just as remarkable – cell functioning, DNA replication, biological systems, you name it. Even aspects of memory are unconscious. So how about the ‘objective fact’ requiring explanation is why the vast majority of organic functions are carried out without intention? Thanks, Source/Reason/Deity, for making all those harmful bacteria and viruses which can only be described as efficient killing robots. Beautiful harmony there.

Why should it be a problem that things arise due to an impersonal swirl of energy and matter?

Including independent minds with the power of reason without which science wouldn’t even exist!

Have you ever had a dream from which you wake with a sense of awe at how your mind could have produced such detailed conversations or mental landscapes? As much as I hate the smugness of the comment, we could all be imagining life and experience while we sit in a vat of goo.

 

[tonyrey]

The theory of materialism implies that thought is reducible to interactions of energy which are not aware of what they are doing and have no insight or understanding.

You are assuming that we are rational yet on your reckoning rationality is an illusion.

As yet I don’t think anyone has made the notion of a soul logical to believe, so we are only left with the view that we are robots.

If we are robots we do not control our thoughts and we have no more insight or understanding or responsibility than computers - which is a magnificent recipe for total scepticism!

It decides on the basis of what we know to be true - that the success of science is due not to purposeless particles but rational beings.Anyone who claims to understand the essential nature of Ultimate Reality is presumptuous and preposterous!

Well as you/we don’t know it, we cannot presume to call it Ultimate Reality or give it the name of God.

We don’t know what Ultimate Reality is but there is very good reason to believe the universe is not self-explanatory.

Theism is not based on one Christian belief.

I’m glad you pointed that out; we’d have to have reasons to believe any single sort of theistic conception, given that many are possible.

As well as being inadequate the weakness of materialism is that there is only one brand and therefore more likely to be false!

It is entailed by what some of them say - God is ultimately a mystery, God is unknowable. Well in that case, no-one, not even they can understand.

“ultimately” is the key word.

Materialism is a classic example of “top-down untestable metaphysics”. Theism on the other hand is based on the testable evidence of our direct experience of ourselves and basic facts about the universe such as its orderliness, intelligibility and predictability, all of which are the postulates on which science is based.

TOE is a scientific not a necessarily materialistic theory, and I agree that materialism may be a metaphysical system held in faith, but if that TOE ever emerges, it will be built from the bottom up.

It will be built on the principles and presuppositions I have already pointed out, notably the sole certainty of our knowledge of our thoughts.

I would say that science is not based on the postulates of the orderliness and intelligibility of the universe, but instead our reason to believe in the hypotheses of science is based on the observation of orderliness. Rationality and order are not a priori but experienced.

They are inferences on which your reasoning is based.

I like truth quite a bit, but I cannot say that the value of truth objectively exists, can you?

If the truth is not objectively valuable neither is your reasoning!

If we can only be certain of our minds, we obviously are not certain about those values you posited - Beauty, truth, justice etc etc. However, it is upon the supposed objective existence of those values that you base your theological argument.

I have already justified the objective value of truth to which the other intangible realities are related.

Given that you say theology tests evidence, how can you arrange a test of things whose existence you are uncertain of?

Do you doubt or need to test the existence of your thoughts?

What if there are no objective values, but we don’t need them? That is just as consistent.

It is not consistent to make that statement about consistency and deny the need for consistency with your reliance on your power of reason. Do you deny that consistency has any value?

The primary flaw of materialism is its rejection of the independence and power of reason.

I think you have shrunk the mind to just one thing it is capable of doing. You’re forgetting the power of our perceptions, which cannot be removed from the practice of science or theology. Indeed, I think we are nothing with reason alone, and all too frequently our default setting is not to reason well, even on simple tasks.

You are using reason to disparage reason! Everything else - including our perceptions -presupposes its value and power. Our perceptions are useless if they are not interpreted.

It is the order and intelligibility of the universe which requires explanation as well as our power of reason. Moreover, as Pascal noted, we know the universe exists but the universe doesn’t know we exist.

The universe is not necessarily based on rational principles; and it seems we deduce rational principles like laws of nature from the universe, not for it. What are any of these rational principles you think the universe is based on anyway? As we are a part of the universe, the universe knows itself.

There is no evidence that the universe is aware of, or knows, anything. It need not be intelligible but it is intelligible - to a very great extent - precisely because of its order and regularity. If it were chaotic we wouldn’t understand it because there would be nothing to understand!

 

[tonyrey]

‘Consciousness is the outstanding attribute of rational beings’ sounds like a value, not a fact. We don’t need consciousness to act rationally, merely to be aware that we are acting rationally.

It is a valuable fact! Would you prefer not to have it?

What about all the non-conscious things the body does to stay alive? Those things seem just as remarkable – cell functioning, DNA replication, biological systems, you name it. Even aspects of memory are unconscious. So how about the ‘objective fact’ requiring explanation is why the vast majority of organic functions are carried out without intention?

That is another reason for believing in Design rather than purposeless processes!

Thanks, Source/Reason/Deity, for making all those harmful bacteria and viruses which can only be described as efficient killing robots. Beautiful harmony there.

You obviously expect to have everything for nothing! For every advantage there is a corresponding disadvantage…

Why should it be a problem that things arise due to an impersonal swirl of energy and matter?

Apart from the increase in complexity and the progressive nature of evolution there is the existence of persons - who are not adequately described as “things”. Efficiency is not to be expected from “an impersonal swirl”!

Have you ever had a dream from which you wake with a sense of awe at how your mind could have produced such detailed conversations or mental landscapes? As much as I hate the smugness of the comment, we could all be imagining life and experience while we sit in a vat of goo.

The success of science is the best antidote to such idle fantasies - which don’t correspond to the way anyone lives!

 

[James224]

Is there any procedural similarity? Do they come up with hypotheses - ie provisional conclusions, and test their ideas?

Yes it is a science. "
"I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God." (Thomas Aquinas,Summa Theologica, Part 1, Q 1, A 1)

 

[Abu]

Of course theology is a science.
Living Tradition, the Organ Of The Roman Theological Forum, has a wealth of great discussion on many topics of theology and philosophy. See Anthony Rizzi’s *The Science Before Science *reviewed by Msgr John F. McCarthy at
rtforum.org/lt/lt123.html

“If ‘science’ is defined merely to coincide with empirical science, there results a false concept of science and an impoverished idea of reality. Technical science, as distinguished from common sense, is ‘certified knowledge,’ and some assume that only the knowledge gained from empirical science is really certified, into which they might throw historical knowledge in a broader sense. But there are other areas and levels of technical science that also give certified knowledge. Not only is there true historical science, but, in the midst of the widespread confusion and misunderstanding in the field known today as ‘modern philosophy,’ there is still an area of true philosophical science, if one can manage to find it, and it resides in Scholastic philosophy. Again, there is still an area of theological science, and it resides today especially in Scholastic theology, and the knowledge presented in these latter two sciences is also objectively true and real.” [My emphasis].

 

[Groucho_Marx]

Of course theology is a science.
Living Tradition, the Organ Of The Roman Theological Forum, has a wealth of great discussion on many topics of theology and philosophy. See Anthony Rizzi’s *The Science Before Science *reviewed by Msgr John F. McCarthy at
rtforum.org/lt/lt123.html

“If ‘science’ is defined merely to coincide with empirical science, there results a false concept of science and an impoverished idea of reality. Technical science, as distinguished from common sense, is ‘certified knowledge,’ and some assume that only the knowledge gained from empirical science is really certified, into which they might throw historical knowledge in a broader sense. But there are other areas and levels of technical science that also give certified knowledge. Not only is there true historical science, but, in the midst of the widespread confusion and misunderstanding in the field known today as ‘modern philosophy,’ there is still an area of true philosophical science, if one can manage to find it, and it resides in Scholastic philosophy. Again, there is still an area of theological science, and it resides today especially in Scholastic theology, and the knowledge presented in these latter two sciences is also objectively true and real.” [My emphasis].

I like it! :tiphat:

 

[fred_conty]

Yes it is a science. "
"I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God." (Thomas Aquinas,Summa Theologica, Part 1, Q 1, A 1)

I’ll second that.

 

[wanstronian]

It follows that you reject the reality of anything that is not material.

So you believe that the only non-materialist worldview is a religious one, and vice versa? How odd. How very naive.

Which confirms the point I have just made - that you reject the reality of anything that is not material…

It doesn’t confirm anything. Yes, I reject non-material worldviews (with good reason), but that’s not a logical follow-on from a rejection of theology.

 

[wanstronian]

Theology is not “guesswork”. It is built on basic principles of philosophy and history which can be used to demonstrate what, if any, theological ideas are accurate and which are inaccurate.

Philosophy is also guesswork! As is miuch of history, from that era.

Which theological ideas do you consider accurate, and how would you demonstrate their accuracy? Isn’t the resurrection a theological idea that is generally considered accurate? That’s not even guesswork - it’s lunacy. Dead people don’t come back to life. The end.

The OED defines theology as:

“1. The branch of knowledge that deals with Christian theistic religion; the organized body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God.”

How can this not be guesswork, when the existence of God cannot be demonstrated?

 

[tonyrey]

wanstronian;83016a83:

So you believe that the only non-materialist worldview is a religious one, and vice versa? How odd. How very naive.

You have never - as far as I’m aware - stated anything to the contrary.

It doesn’t confirm anything. Yes, I reject non-material worldviews (with good reason), but that’s not a logical follow-on from a rejection of theology.

The very fact that you reject both implies that they are in the same category…

 

[wanstronian]

wanstronian;83016a83:

You have never - as far as I’m aware - stated anything to the contrary.

We’re not talking about me - we’re discussing the claim that you made in response to my question about which materialist has ever claimed to be able to explain anything. Let me remind you: you said:

**You **

imply it with your claim that theology is guesswork!

Which of course, is a non-sequitur as I pointed out. I see you’re still up to your old tricks - saying something stupid then trying to pretend you didn’t; and worse, trying to pretend that your opponent is being inconsistent. Your disingenuity is so tiresome. But clearly necessary given some of the assertions you make, and your mortal fear of ever admitting that you’re wrong.

The very fact that you reject both implies that they are in the same category…

Yes, but that’s irrelevant to the claim that YOU made. Stop trying to taint me with your own fallacious reasoning.

 

[tonyrey]

You have never - as far as I’m aware - stated anything to the contrary.

Your failure to commit yourself makes further discussion on this topic pointless…

 

[wanstronian]

Your failure to commit yourself makes further discussion on this topic pointless…

As I said, this is not a point of commitment or not, I was simply pointing out the fallacy in your comment in post #16.

Again, you try and remanufacture history. Typical of you - say something stupid, then quickly change the subject and accuse me of trying to dodge the issue! It’s impossible to hold a conversation with you because you won’t stay on track.

You’re right on one thing though - there’s not much point in continuing here. But it’s not due to my failure to commit, it’s due to your failure to behave in a responsible and honest manner.

 

[tonyrey]

As I said, this is not a point of commitment or not…

You have still not explained why your rejection of theology is not related to your rejection of the reality of anything that is not material. It must therefore be gratuitous…

 

[Deconi]

According to Augustine, Theology is the prince of all the sciences.

I concur.

 

[Pieman333272]

Philosophy is also guesswork!

Actually, that is a popularized myth. Because all philosophical ideas’ truths are judged based on a series of criteria (either directly proven or axiomic), philosophy can be said to be a legitimate analysis of ideas.

As is miuch of history, from that era.

While I agree that ancient history’s (I presume you mean ancient, if you mean medieval or early modern feel free to correct me) ideas require comparatively less evidence to prove, that is hardly a reason to reject ancient history. This is for 2 reasons:

1. Within the context, there were little actual ways of or reasons to put things down
2. Much of the evidence they DID have has been lost

So the low amount of evidence for ancient historical hypotheses is justified. If you don’t believe me, consider that even big-name atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Carrier (who actually has a degree in ancient history) never argue against the legitimacy of religion by challenging the legitimacy of ancient history.

Which theological ideas do you consider accurate, and how would you demonstrate their accuracy?

The Catholic Church as being given its authority by Christ. Evidenced by the story of Christ giving Peter the keys to heaven (which we have no reason to deny), combined with the direct lineage of popes back to Peter.

Isn’t the resurrection a theological idea that is generally considered accurate?

Technically it’s a Historical idea, not a theological one, but since I can see where this is going I’ll work with you. Besides, the resurrection does lead into a plethora of true theological ideas we can debate further, so let’s see your problems with it.

That’s not even guesswork - it’s lunacy. Dead people don’t come back to life. The end.

You are the one doing “guesswork”, friend. At any point, when one can affirm or dismiss a historical issue based solely on a philosophical presumption, regardless of the accuracy of that assumption, they have stopped doing legitimate history and started writing Dogma.

How can this not be guesswork, when the existence of God cannot be demonstrated?

And thus is the presumption your entire argument rests on. I’ll list some basic arguments to show you that God’s existence has/can be demonstrated, and we can expand on them as you wish:

1. The Cosmological argument (examples include: Kalam, Lebinez)
2. The Ontological Argument (examples include: St. Anslem’s & co., Modal Logic)
3. The argument from revelation (examples include: the Resurrection, Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Lourdes healings)
4. The argument from design (examples include: teleological, theistic evolution)
5. The argument from degrees (examples of degrees are: love, goodness, purpose, knowledge).

I would also like to note that there is a distinction between God being unable to prove and God not being proven. While the burden is on the theist to refute the latter, the burden is on the atheist to disprove the former, which is what you actually said. So you do have a burden of proof to fulfill to defend your critique of theology.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, that is a popularized myth. Because all philosophical ideas’ truths are judged based on a series of criteria (either directly proven or axiomic), philosophy can be said to be a legitimate analysis of ideas.

It is ironic that **science **is based on philosophical truths and logical principles rather than being a self-explanatory system - as explained in any textbook about the philosophy of science!