Isn't Theology a Science?

[Oreoracle]

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.

The problem, of course, is that the question of which criteria should be used is itself a disputed matter in philosophy. Philosophy as a whole does not adhere to any single set of principles. Any given set of initial principles, such as the methods used to verify and falsify hypotheses, is the result of guesswork insofar as it is axiomatic, and is not touted by all of philosophy, but only by a particular sect of philosophy.

 

[Pieman333272]

The problem, of course, is that the question of which criteria should be used is itself a disputed matter in philosophy.

As this is all your argument rests on, before I challenge the rest I challenge you to find a group of philosophers from this time who reject all basics axioms and proven starting statements. While some specific criteria are disputed, even then most of the basic ones - which can still tell you a lot - are agreed upon.

 

[lemondiesel]

I believe anything derived from philosophy is a part of science, which definitely includes theology.

 

[buffalo]

Theology is rightly called the Queen of the Sciences

 

[tonyrey]

I believe anything derived from philosophy is a part of science, which definitely includes theology.

How do you explain metaphysics?

 

[Oreoracle]

As this is all your argument rests on, before I challenge the rest I challenge you to find a group of philosophers from this time who reject all basics axioms and proven starting statements. While some specific criteria are disputed, even then most of the basic ones - which can still tell you a lot - are agreed upon.

The consensus among philosophers is irrelevant. The point is that philosophy allows for unrestricted questioning, even when it comes to the most basic principles. Contrast this with other systems, such as the scientific method, which do not allow for their foundations to be questioned. If you want to be a scientist, you have to accept the scientific method. If you want to be a mathematician, you have to accept the postulates of whatever kind of math you’re using. If you want to be a philosopher, you don’t really have to accept anything.

But if this point isn’t so obvious, here are a few examples:

1. Solipsists do not accept the belief that an external universe exists.
2. Advocates of paraconsistent logics allow for the existence of contradictions. In other words, they believe the law of noncontradiction isn’t very law-like.
3. Finitists deny the existence of infinite sets, objects that are generally considered to exist in mathematics. In fact, the strict finitists don’t accept the use of infinity as a concept at all.
4. The nature of the future is a point of contention; more specifically, some believe that the state of the future is “up for grabs”, such as free will advocates, while others believe events are predetermined, such as the determinists.
5. While most do agree that events in the universe are caused, people do not agree on whether the universe itself needed to be caused. Some believe the universe may be eternal, while others think it had a definite starting point. Some believe that the universe isn’t eternal but that some supernatural beings are.
6. Philosophers dispute whether aesthetic and moral qualities are objective or subjective in nature. Platonists may argue that beauty is an objective Form, in spite of what non-Platonists think, and moral objectivists may argue that morality exists independently of peoples’ preferences, in spite of what moral subjectivists think.

Need I go on?

 

[Pieman333272]

The consensus among philosophers is irrelevant. The point is that philosophy allows for unrestricted questioning, even when it comes to the most basic principles. Contrast this with other systems, such as the scientific method, which do not allow for their foundations to be questioned. If you want to be a scientist, you have to accept the scientific method. If you want to be a mathematician, you have to accept the postulates of whatever kind of math you’re using. If you want to be a philosopher, you don’t really have to accept anything.

Actually, you completely misunderstood what I said. Yes, you can get away with BELIEVING anything in philosophy. But will ANY idea in philosophy get accepted by major, legitimate philosophers without being hammered with a series of logical analysis? No. As a matter of fact, the same problem exists with science - plenty of people get away with believing in perpetual motion - some even get published! - but when you apply the premises and methodology to science, as the legitimate scientists do (I hope!), you will see it is not OBJECTIVELY the case.

1. Solipsists do not accept the belief that an external universe exists.
2. Advocates of paraconsistent logics allow for the existence of contradictions. In other words, they believe the law of noncontradiction isn’t very law-like.
3. Finitists deny the existence of infinite sets, objects that are generally considered to exist in mathematics. In fact, the strict finitists don’t accept the use of infinity as a concept at all.
4. The nature of the future is a point of contention; more specifically, some believe that the state of the future is “up for grabs”, such as free will advocates, while others believe events are predetermined, such as the determinists.
5. While most do agree that events in the universe are caused, people do not agree on whether the universe itself needed to be caused. Some believe the universe may be eternal, while others think it had a definite starting point. Some believe that the universe isn’t eternal but that some supernatural beings are.
6. Philosophers dispute whether aesthetic and moral qualities are objective or subjective in nature. Platonists may argue that beauty is an objective Form, in spite of what non-Platonists think, and moral objectivists may argue that morality exists independently of peoples’ preferences, in spite of what moral subjectivists think.

1. Actually, Solipsists only believe that you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the external world exists - and many non-Solipsists agree! Many Solipsists do act as though the external world exists, just as many astronomers perform calculations based on a geocentric model - they’re skeptical that it’s the case, but it’s **practically **more useful than what they actually believe.
2. Paraconsistent logic is relatively minor (similar to many psuedosciences), but even then one of the main reasons for its existence is to challenge orthodoxy. Even then, it’s not necessarily problematic because they still have reasons to back it up, just like some people had or have reasons to alter or delete the scientific method.
3. Most philosophers agree that it is impossible to obtain an infinite amount of a finite object. That being said, they keep the concept of infinity in mind due to the nature of possibility and necessity, but even then this dispute is relatively useless and only really affects whether or not an idea is rejected by default or not, not the logical analysis of ideas.
4. This is an example of something which is DECIDED based on already-made PREMISES. Free will is an ISSUE, not a PREMISE.
5. See #4.
6. See #4.

 

[shoe]

Hi,

Many people say that you cannot know God through science. But isn’t theology itself a science?

Joshua

I think just about all the founding fathers of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, calculus; Louis Pasteur, bacteriology; and Charles Babbage, computer science, etc., were Christians whose scientific discoveries came about because of Christian theology - not atheism or the theory of evolution. It was their Christian belief that God is the source of all truth, that He is a rational Being, and that His world is a rational world that gave rise to their thoughts, ideas, and possibilities about scientific laws. I believe that without Christian theology mankind would not now have many of the benefits of science; for example, the benefits of medicine, space travel, and computers.

 

[Oreoracle]

As a matter of fact, the same problem exists with science - plenty of people get away with believing in perpetual motion - some even get published! - but when you apply the premises and methodology to science, as the legitimate scientists do (I hope!), you will see it is not OBJECTIVELY the case.

The difference between philosophy and science is that if science encounters two theories that are mutually exclusive, it picks one and discards the other–consequently, only one is considered “scientific”. If philosophy encounters two theories that are mutually exclusive, it accepts both as being “philosophical”. We can infer one of two things from this: a) the rules of philosophy accept contradictory ideas, or b) there are no inherent rules of philosophy. I believe the latter. How about you?

And even if scientists were split on a topic, full adherence to the scientific method could make one group correct, at least in theory. But how do you resolve disputes in philosophy whenever a methodology (like the scientific method) is not accepted? The conflicting schools of thought needn’t have any common ground, and so we can’t say that all philosophers are obligated to follow the same methodology.

1. Actually, Solipsists only believe that you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the external world exists - and many non-Solipsists agree!

First off, what you said here makes no logical sense. If believing that you can’t prove the external universe exists beyond reasonable doubt is the only requirement to be a solipsist, then how can non-solipsists agree? Wouldn’t they be solipsists if they agreed?

Secondly, that belief is considered ludicrous by most, I think. How many people entertain any doubt whatsoever as to whether the external universe exists?

Even then, it’s not necessarily problematic because they still have reasons to back it up, just like some people had or have reasons to alter or delete the scientific method.

But the point is that not everyone accepts axioms such as the law of noncontradiction. They might have a rationale for denying it, but you asked for a group of people who reject commonly used axioms, and they fit the description.

1. Most philosophers agree that it is impossible to obtain an infinite amount of a finite object.

What in the world is “finite object” supposed to mean? Have you ever encountered an “infinite object”? Is “finite object” something like “wet water”?

That being said, they keep the concept of infinity in mind due to the nature of possibility and necessity, but even then this dispute is relatively useless and only really affects whether or not an idea is rejected by default or not, not the logical analysis of ideas.

On the contrary, it is extremely important for some kinds of reasoning. For example, inductive reasoning in math depends on the notion of an “inductive step” and a base case implying an infinite number of other propositions. For example, it is used when one wants to prove something about the natural numbers, which comprise an infinite set. But if one believes that an infinite number of steps can’t be completed, then an inductive proof doesn’t work.

1. This is an example of something which is DECIDED based on already-made PREMISES. Free will is an ISSUE, not a PREMISE.

I have never seen anyone reason their way to the conclusion that free will exists, or that the universe needs a cause, or that morality is objective. These propositions are more or less assumed.

 

[Abu]

shoe
I believe that without Christian theology mankind would not now have many of the benefits of science; for example, the benefits of medicine, space travel, and computers.

So true.

In Catholicism and Science, Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004) points out that:
“Alfred North Whitehead, the great philosopher and mathematician, co-author with Bertrand Russell of the landmark Principia Mathematica, credited “medieval theology” for the rise of science. He pointed to the “insistence on the rationality of God,” which produced the belief that “the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith.”

“To sum up: The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: Nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Moreover, because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation it ought to be possible to discover these principles. These crucial religious ideas were why the rise of science occurred in Christian Europe, not somewhere else.”
catholicleague.org/research/catholicism_and_science.htm

 

[Pieman333272]

If philosophy encounters two theories that are mutually exclusive, it accepts both as being “philosophical”.

Again you demonstrate misunderstanding. Philosophy does not accept 2 contradictory ideas, it accepts the potential of truth in 2 contradictory ideas - and science does the same. Even if one view pushes over, science continues to consider, and analyze, the other.

We can infer one of two things from this: a) the rules of philosophy accept contradictory ideas, or b) there are no inherent rules of philosophy.

Since both are based on a misunderstanding of how philosophy analyzes ideas, both are useless to the analysis of philosophy.

How about you?

I believe you misunderstood the nature of philosophical analysis and both of your two “inferences” are moot points.

But how do you resolve disputes in philosophy whenever a methodology (like the scientific method) is not accepted? The conflicting schools of thought needn’t have any common ground, and so we can’t say that all philosophers are obligated to follow the same methodology.

Well, 2 schools of thought could each reach their own conclusions, and a philosopher choose a school of thought which he finds accurate. Schools of thought contradicting each other and philosophy being a legitimate subject are not mutually exclusive.

First off, what you said here makes no logical sense. If believing that you can’t prove the external universe exists beyond reasonable doubt is the only requirement to be a solipsist, then how can non-solipsists agree? Wouldn’t they be solipsists if they agreed?

I’m sorry, I meant people who didn’t use the TITLE of solipsist.

Secondly, that belief is considered ludicrous by most, I think. How many people entertain any doubt whatsoever as to whether the external universe exists?

Well, of course many people accept it, but when hard pressed about it, I think most honest philosophers would admit you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt the universe exists.

But the point is that not everyone accepts axioms such as the law of noncontradiction. They might have a rationale for denying it, but you asked for a group of people who reject commonly used axioms, and they fit the description.

Well yes, you are right, but as I point out similar problems plague science. If you took any geographical or historical comparison of the many forms of the scientific method you would see for yourself.

What in the world is “finite object” supposed to mean? Have you ever encountered an “infinite object”? Is “finite object” something like “wet water”?

A finite object is something which does not have infinite traits. Like a rock. It may be hard, but it is not INFINITELY hard, so it is a finite object.

On the contrary, it is extremely important for some kinds of reasoning. For example, inductive reasoning in math depends on the notion of an “inductive step” and a base case implying an infinite number of other propositions. For example, it is used when one wants to prove something about the natural numbers, which comprise an infinite set. But if one believes that an infinite number of steps can’t be completed, then an inductive proof doesn’t work.

I suppose you’re right. I never viewed it like that.

I have never seen anyone reason their way to the conclusion that free will exists, or that the universe needs a cause, or that morality is objective. These propositions are more or less assumed.

I wonder how many people who have argued based on those 3 ideas you have seen. Either way, if you want defenses of free will, objective morality, and a caused universe based on previously backed philosophical ideas, I advise you to create a thread asking about it, or even just look at the past threads. You may be surprised.

 

[James1215]

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

No, maybe it isn’t objectively valuable, but I like the implication that it is the truth! We already tacitly agreed to value the truth by discussing this with each other, unless I am mistaken, so the value of truth need not be objectively grounded in order to function. Might this principle not be the same for other values, like morality, beauty, etc?

Clearly we’re not going to agree on all the finer points that have been raised so far, and I would like to discuss them, but I am also keen to value the aim of staying on-topic in threads!

 

[wanstronian]

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…

Okay, you’re full on for deflecting attention away from your error. Have it your way.

 

[wanstronian]

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.

Not of truth claims then.

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

I don’t reject it, I just note that for the very reasons you state, it should not be relied upon to support such incredible truth claims as those made by religion.

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.

Well, it depends on what you mean by the “legitimacy of religion.” Truth is, there’s no real need to point out the inherent inaccuracy of historical reportage. There’s good enough reason to reject religious truth claims without resorting to that.

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.

You’re mis-using the word “evidence” here. There is no evidence that Christ even existed, let alone giving Peter the keys to heaven, itself a place/state/idea that’s never been shown to exist. The bible cannot be relied upon as an accurate record of events, for reasons that I’m sure you’re aware of.

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.

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.

Not really. We have a massive body (pun not intended) of evidence - several billion examples - that dead people don’t come back to life. And one book, of dubious and multiple origin and lineage, claims that one person did. This is a case of what’s more plausible - that someone invented the concept to promote their ancient religion, or that someone actually did come back to life? I know where I’d put my money.

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)

Point Refuted A Thousand Times. The Cosmo is not safe.

1. The Ontological Argument (examples include: St. Anslem’s & co., Modal Logic)

PRATT

1. The argument from revelation (examples include: the Resurrection, Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Lourdes healings)

None of which have been shown to be genuine. Next…

1. The argument from design (examples include: teleological, theistic evolution)

PRATT. ID is not science, it’s creationism. There have been whole threads on this - it’s not legitimate science.

1. The argument from degrees (examples of degrees are: love, goodness, purpose, knowledge).

Re-hash of Ontological. Therefore PRATT.

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.

Oh, this old chestnut. Theists claims God exists, atheist points out the lack of evidence, theist arbitrarily places burden of proof on atheist to prove a negative. Give me a break.

My critique of theology is based around the total absence of any evidence for the existence of God. On balance, taking everything into account, the likelihood is that it doesn’t exist. The same can be said of Santa Claus (the fat jolly man in the red suit who delivers twelve billion presents globally in a single night, not the original Saint Nicholas), for the very same reasons.

 

[wanstronian]

I think just about all the founding fathers of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, calculus; Louis Pasteur, bacteriology; and Charles Babbage, computer science, etc., were Christians whose scientific discoveries came about because of Christian theology - not atheism or the theory of evolution. It was their Christian belief that God is the source of all truth, that He is a rational Being, and that His world is a rational world that gave rise to their thoughts, ideas, and possibilities about scientific laws. I believe that without Christian theology mankind would not now have many of the benefits of science; for example, the benefits of medicine, space travel, and computers.

But that doesn’t make theology a science. It was at best a facilitator, built on arguably false premises.

The tenets of theology may have given rise to some of the ideas that spawned scientific discovery, but that in no way implies that these ideas would never have occurred without theology.

I think this is a non-sequitur.

 

[tonyrey]

You have still not explained why your rejection of theology is not

Whether I have made an error or not - which is quite possible because I don’t claim to be infallible - you have still not explained why your rejection of theology is unrelated to your rejection of immaterial reality. It therefore undermines your rejection of theology because it has no rational basis, but then neither does your materialism! Neural impulses are not self-authenticating…

 

[Abu]

wanstronian, #55
The tenets of theology may have given rise to some of the ideas that spawned scientific discovery, but that in no way implies that these ideas would never have occurred without theology.

Here facts of history are ignored to make historyseem doubtful and, additionally, a fallacious assumption is made.

Post #50 quotes Alfred North Whitehead and Rodney Stark logically explains why Catholic doctrine had enabled the rise of science.

 

[tonyrey]

Here facts of history are ignored to make historyseem doubtful and, additionally, a fallacious assumption is made.

Post #50 quotes Alfred North Whitehead and Rodney Stark logically explains why Catholic doctrine had enabled the rise of science.

“To the popular mind, science is completely inimical to religion: science embraces facts and evidence while religion professes blind faith. Like many simplistic popular notions, this view is mistaken. Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity.”

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

 

[Pieman333272]

Not of truth claims then.

I don’t understand what you mean (if this isn’t just trolling which happens to go over my head). Could you phrase it differently? Thanks.

I don’t reject it, I just note that for the very reasons you state, it should not be relied upon to support such incredible truth claims as those made by religion.

4 Questions:

1. Why can’t the claims of ancient historians be used to support religion?
2. Can AH be used to attack or refute religion? If so, why is a positive claim (regarding AH) made by an atheist more reliable than a positive claim made by a Christian?
3. If ancient historians’ ideas (both proven and hypothetical) cannot be used to support religion, why do many historians (of various periods), apologists from both sides, and various philosophers and literary commentators use AH to support and attack the claims of various religions?
4. Do you support AH being used to support other touchy subjects, like politics, philosophy (besides religion), and ethics? If so, why do you think AH is reliable enough to be used on other major intellectual debates but not religion?

Well, it depends on what you mean by the “legitimacy of religion.” Truth is, there’s no real need to point out the inherent inaccuracy of historical reportage. There’s good enough reason to reject religious truth claims without resorting to that.

If your argument is that there is no evidence for God, and part of the evidence for God is built on AH, then you must refute that evidence for your premise to be correct. Richard Dawkins attacks arguments for God based on AH. So do Hitchens and Carrier. They just never do it by challenging the legitimacy of AH as a subject.

You’re mis-using the word “evidence” here.

How so? Please tell me how you are using the term “evidence” so I can adjust my argument to fit your terms.

There is no evidence that Christ even existed

You just proved you have no idea what you’re talking about:

Look at a few of the pages here and tell me the thing you just did is still a reasonable response.

If you want me to summarize, just ask.

let alone giving Peter the keys to heaven, itself a place/state/idea that’s never been shown to exist.

As my link has shown you are blatantly wrong about the no evidence on Jesus. Give me 3 good reasons to reject the Gospels’ account of Jesus’ giving the keys to Peter and the attestation to heaven found throughout the NT, needless to say the OT as well.

The bible cannot be relied upon as an accurate record of events, for reasons that I’m sure you’re aware of.

I’ve also seen all these reasons refuted. Considering the rest of your argument has so far been naked assertions and angry ranting, I challenge you to give an argument I haven’t seen before.

Not really. We have a massive body (pun not intended) of evidence - several billion examples - that dead people don’t come back to life. And one book, of dubious and multiple origin and lineage, claims that one person did. This is a case of what’s more plausible - that someone invented the concept to promote their ancient religion, or that someone actually did come back to life? I know where I’d put my money.

It doesn’t matter HOW many examples of dead people not coming back to life we have. The instant somebody reaches the point they can automatically accept or reject a historical hypothesis based on a philosophical worldview, regardless of the nature of or evidence for that worldview, they have stopped doing history and started writing dogma.

Point Refuted A Thousand Times. The Cosmo is not safe.

I highly doubt you’ve proven there is no reason to believe God created the universe. If you think you have an original or intelligent objection to the cosmological argument in general, post it below in your own words and then we’ll talk.

PRATT

See above.

None of which have been shown to be genuine. Next…

Your ability to demonstrate the unreliability of the attestations of these miracles has, as we have seen above, been nothing more than naked assertions, selective application of academic topics, and circular reasoning. We’re discussing it above, at least PRETEND to be open-minded.

PRATT. ID is not science, it’s creationism. There have been whole threads on this - it’s not legitimate science.

Good job reading. I didn’t list ID ON PURPOSE. I reject it myself. I said THEISTIC EVOLUTION (which is different from ID) and TELEOLOGY, which is a question of PURPOSE.

PRATT

Really? Because saying a point has been refuted “a thousand times” neither makes that true nor makes you look intelligent.

Give me a break.

Actually, I asked the atheist to refute not the concept of God but specific arguments for God. If they’re so easy to refute they’ve been refuted “a thousand times” I think that isn’t too much to ask.

And by the way, the consistent boxing of peoples’ philosophical arguments and worldviews doesn’t help your case. I don’t know about the others here, but to me it makes it look like you can’t answer objections which you haven’t encountered before - which seem to be a lot. If these arguments are so easy to refute, you should at least be able to keep a respectful, open-minded attitude and post at least one actual counter to each in your own words, neither of which you have done.

My critique of theology is based around the total absence of any evidence for the existence of God.

I’ve given you plenty of evidence and arguments for God. You being too attached to your worldview to accept or refute them doesn’t constitute “total absence of any evidence”.

 

[buffalo]

But that doesn’t make theology a science. It was at best a facilitator, built on arguably false premises.

The tenets of theology may have given rise to some of the ideas that spawned scientific discovery, but that in no way implies that these ideas would never have occurred without theology.

I think this is a non-sequitur.

One only has to look at Islam to see how wrong this statement is.