Once again Yorick you've proved that you can present an opinion without riling people. My argument was not over the factual content of the words but instead over the choice of phrase. You seem to be able to put your point across without resorting to antagonism, which seems to suggest to me that you just wanted to annoy Eisendram with that comment. I just disagreed with your phrasing - not the idea. You may be calling a spade a spade but you were doing so in such an overly antagonistic manner that it was bound to kick the two of you into a slightly less civil argument than you have previously had.

You’ve made the mistake of trying to present a contingent truth (spoken & Written language) as a necessary or absolute truth. I'm afraid The Cambridge dictionary will disagree with you here. (thanks to "esquire")

Thus as we can see, Theology does not use the scientific method as it is described there.
Theology is based on Dogma, and all it’s conclusions are thus shaped.
I’m not saying that is bad, But that’s just how it is.
I'm calling a spade a spade ;o)

The quote Comes from Joseph Ratzinger.
Pancritical simply means applying criticism or reason to everything. Pan as in panoramic, I.e the whole, etc Critical As in Critical Thinking, To Criticise and explore.

I did already define the word for you in essence, re:

"pancritical rationality, Which is a way of thinking that is free of external domination (for example that of a deity & associated Dogma), always regards all assumptions and all results as in principle open to criticism and does not cling stubbornly and dogmatically to any thesis."

Would you like to either prove that Or withdraw that comment?
If you can't, I understand perfectly :o)

HTH.
TIA.

Eisenschwarz, why being so aggressive ? :(

[ 01-27-2003, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

Why should the human powers of thought and reasoning be so utterly and completely removed from anything else spawned by nature?

Humans ARE quite different from most other animals, but why can't this difference just be the result of evolved specialisation?

It is quite clear that we are a very social species. We are also belong to a very social type of animals (apes). Communication is important for flock animals and the ability to communicate more advanced matters to the rest of the flock is a really good ability for the survival and proliferation of the species.

We have developed a quite powerful ability for this, called speech. A system of sounds that can be formed and combined into sentences that can carry an almost (if not actually) infinite array of meanings. This is quite unlike other flock animals that are only able to communicate a limited amount of meanings.

The ability to adapt one's way of thinking and concepts of the world around one is probably a pre-human thing, albeit it is especially pronounced on humans. The ability is vital to any species that wishes to extend it's range of possible habitats. Imagination, memory and toolmaking have all proven to be good attributes for survival.

But why has the human powers of imagining, reasoning and concept-making evolved to be so radical as to include artistic ability and the power of existencial and religious thought?

There are several explanations on this:

1. These modes of thinking is an unharmful (and quite wonderful) by-product of a more important ability (the general ability of advanced thought). It is a common mistake to view evolution as only producing beneficial traits. A lot of inconsequential traits can also appear. A trait, that neither promotes, nor hinders the survival and proliferation of a species would not necessarily have to be lost in evolution.

2. The ability has proven beneficial for survival and proliferation. This is a more likely scenario since why should it else become so common?
It is another common mistake only to look on things such as the ability to gather food and protect oneself and one's kind from calamities. The ability to acquire mates and, in the case of flock animals, the goodwill of the flock.
One sweet little theory states that boredom was an issue for the early human. During days or nights where there was little to do besides sitting inside the shelter or cave humans could sometimes become quite bored. Some humans invented storytelling along the way. Those who could alleviate long winters or droughts with imaginative stories or inspirational art would rise in popularity. This would mean more mates and a bigger share of the food. Also in such dire times the human capacity to understand advanced concepts and be able to think back and forth in time could produce great anxiety. People who were able to ease this (often detrimental) state in themselves or others would have a greater chance of survival and a greater status in the group. This could be the origin of the first priests (the rulers of ancient human cultures often also had clerical functions).

I, personally like the second explanation better. One might also consider that the acknowledgement of the divine and the understanding of the religious aspect of the world might have a beneficial effect on survival.

<font color="plum">I was a little surprised to see this thread revived this morning. I didn't visit the forum over the weekend and figured it would have dropped to Page 3 or 4 by now.

<font color="yellow">Yorick</font> & <font color="white">Eisen</font> - Would it be possible to just bypass the whole "science" debate? It is quickly degenerating into an <font color="lime">"Is Not/Is Too"</font> argument that neither side is going to even consider compromising on...so it's best to just accept the fact that you view it differently and move on.

<font color="yellow">Yorick</font> - <font color="white">Eisen</font> is never going to accept that theology is a science because it isn't a "pure science", as it does have a pre-determined hypothesis that is considered unalterable.

<font color="white">Eisen</font> - "Pure science" is a wonderful ideal, but it is just as "corruptible" as you consider theology to be. The cold hard fact is that most scientists depend on outside funding or grants to conduct their research and it is a well documented fact that the "test results" are often altered to suit the sponser. This discussion has been held before and that fact has been attested to by different members who are working scientists. Unfavorable results are sometimes altered or ignored in order to present "positive results" to the group or organization that is providing the funding. In that context, even "pure" science can have a predetermined outcome. I recognize why you disagree with theology as a science and I agree with you that it is not the same as research science. But I am also pointing out that research science is not always as "objective and open-minded" as it likes to portray itself.

<font color="cyan">realbinky</font> - In response to your post to me on Page 3, none of the comments made so far have served to "lessen my faith". Indeed, the opposite is true. I don't have any problem with you (or anybody else) disagreeing with me and challenging my beliefs. Having my beliefs "attacked" is a different matter. Some people cannot challenge without attacking, and I have been upset at some remarks that have been made in that context in the past - but nobody has made any such comments in this thread. My faith has been strengthened immensely since I started "allowing" it to be challenged. I've seen very good arguments against religion presented in the various discussions I've participated in, and this has made me examine my beliefs more closely in order to determine exactly why I believe as I do. In some cases, I have changed some long-standing beliefs when presented with a good enough counter-argument - but my core faith has only grown stronger. I have tested my faith, and it has withstood every test I've administered. Just as a sword is strengthened and tempered by fire, so has my faith been. The more it has been challenged, the more I have had to search my Bible and other sources for answers. This has served to strengthen the foundation of my belief even more than when I first started.

<font color="yellow">Moraine</font> - You ask what a believer would do if they were presented with irrefutable proof that God did NOT exist. That is an interesting question - and one that I can only answer for myself. Even though I don't follow Pascal's Theory as a reason for believing (ie, that I have nothing to lose and a great potential to gain), I would have to say that my reaction would be that of one who had. I've lived my life as I saw fit. I've treated my fellow man with kindness and respect just as I would want to be treated and I've been respectful of those whose beliefs contradicted my own. I have been as good a person as I know how (for the most part anyway, but nobody is perfect ;) )So if I were to die and discover that God did not exist, the life I've lived would be reward enough for me. Even if presented with irrefutable proof that God does not exist, I would not change my lifestyle. I am who I am and the absence of God would not change that.

I admit that your question made me defensive at first. After all, I honostly and sincerely believe it would be absolutely impossible for anybody to present me with irrefutable proof that God does not exist. Also, I don't claim to be a scientist, so I have no obligation to "keep an open mind" about the subject. But, if I wish for atheists, agnostics, pagans, heathens and others to look deep within themselves and examine thier belief systems and consider "What if you're wrong" - then it is only fair that I subject myself to the same hypothesis and examination.

I would be critical of any "irrefutable proof" and I would do my best to refute it...but if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had been wrong all these years...I would still continue to live my life the way I do now. I cannot change the person I have become.</font>

Good post here Cerek. Thanks for asking those two to quit chasing their tails about the science/not science bit. As a lawyer I am less attached to science, since it is logically flawed at base. But, even given the astounding strength of the scientific method, you are absolutely right about the fact that any scientist working today has money backing his/her project and expected results. Now, to be fair, come companies/universities are okay with dis-proving their original hypothesis, but this is rare.

The bit I've quoted is important here. You state exactly how I do behave and think for the most part, as I feel there is irrefutable proof that God does not exist. I just wanted to point this out, 'cause I think the "how can you not believe in God and still be a good/moral person" thing gets really outta hand sometimes. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

I disagree that theology has a predetermined assumption. Someone can study theology and develop an atheistic theology. Or a pantheistic theology. Or a monotheistic theology. There is no predetermined assumption in theology whatsover. Christian theology is one result of studying theology.

It should be noted that my own theology is based on this: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, involving experimentation and measurement and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities - The definition in the Cambridge dictionary, as used and advocated by Dramnek APPLIES to MY THEOLOGY.

Dramnek is using the results of my observations and experiments as proof that my approach is not scientific, simply because he cannot accept the conclusions I have made.

The different schools of psychology do not try and tell each other they are not true psychology simply because they have different outcomes. Why should Dramnek discredit my approach simply because he disagrees with my conclusions?

[ 01-27-2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Must you continue to haggle over the small stuff, Yorick? I mean, really. You go get your dictionary, Dramnek will go get his, and you can each sit and read quietly. [img]graemlins/readingbook.gif[/img] :D :D :D

Look, I happen to think theology can be a science. I think a discussion of how books get cannonized or de-cannonized was a good theological result of the archaeological discovery at Nag Hamadi.

But, gosh, is all this really relevant at all? To anything really?

Why not chase their tails? This is what it all comes down to. As long is its civil, I think this is exactly what should be debated. Not just whether or not there is a supernatural creator or not. This debate was finally maturing into something interesting. I have not posted much in this thread, becouse as we have discovered in previous posts, I am a bit touchy towards Yorick, and would like to stay member of IW, (no affence Yorick) I just know my limits. I am pleased with all the responce to this thread, and will continue to watch.
Maybe I'll pop in here and there.

Commence, please.

Moiraine, the problem I have with atheism is that a human cannot prove anything does not exist. We experience 70 odd years if we're lucky, in a small piece of time and space, and yet we are suddenly able to suggest things don't exist anywhere at all throughout the entire universe with all it's potential parallel diminsions, alternate realities and spiritual possibilities?

Secondly, an atheist places their reality upon theists, by presuming their reality to apply to everyone - thus discrediting and devalidating the experience of someone who says they know God.

Agnosticism does no such thing. Theism does no such thing.

An agnostic view acknowledges there is potential for reality outside their own experience.

I have never tried to say "You know God exists, you're just lying or insane" whereas an atheist by default says that to me. I agree with an atheist when they say they do not know God. You most assuredly do not. ;) I agree with an atheist when they say they have not experienced God. You most probably have not.

If I did that would be devalidating your experience.

However, I know God. Denying his reality is impossible for me now. It would be like denying I am alive, or that I possess love.

Unfortunately pure pancriticism, like true objectivity, are things impossible for humans to possess. The planet, gravity, the sun, food and water, other humans and past experience are all external dominations. You cannot be totally free of bias.

The same piece of music will sound different to you depending on the time of day that you hear it for example. Relative to your heartrate at the time, the song will sound faster or slower.

All our observation is relative.

Timber, I used the definition he posted as a pro for my argument. He has not used the one I posted. ;)

[ 01-27-2003, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

To love God is my Raison D'etre.

<font color="plum">WHY??? Because that is what <font color=white>Eisenswharz</font>/<font color=lightsteelblue>Dramnek</font> DOES!!!! [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

It doesn't mean he's right, but the more you argue with him, the more validity you lend to his argument (at the expense of your own).</font>

But we do have to keep in mind that there *are* Christians (or Muslims, or whatever) who do. They state God exists and people who say he doesn't are either lying or sadly deluded. They fall into the same category as atheists in this respect.
I agree that atheists ignore a possibilty which is there, and that they shouldn't do so, but the attitude you describe exists among the religious as well.

I will say one thing. Theism is the belief in the existance of a god or gods.
Polytheism, the belief in a god. Theology, "the study of god and of religous doctrine andmatters of divinity." How is this science?
Science, takin from websters "Knowledge ascertained by obsevation and experiment, critically tested, systematized, and brought under general principles, a branch of such knowledge; skill or technique. Of or dealing with science; based on, or using the principles and methods of science; systematic and exact. I dont see ANY resemblance here between theism and science. I dont see how you can have science theoligy, thats redundent. Maybe philosophy is a better word. Each to there own philosophy... ;)

Just a brief reminder, if you need it, that the quickest way to get this thread closed and the moratorium on religious debate reimposed will be to have this discussion degenerate into personal insults no matter how well disguised

This is a fascinating subject with a variety of passionately held viewpoints. I would ask all the participants to remember that in this sort of thread there does not have to be winners and losers. If anything said here serves to advance anyone's search for faith or causes them to question their attitudes then it has served it's purpose.

A final point to ponder. This sort of topic will inevitably attract some of our more *cough*vigorous*cough* debaters. That's all well and good, but sometimes the more experienced members who like to participate in these discussions will reply in a manner that to some can seem overbearing, arrogant or condescending. It's a matter of style and emphasis. I'm not asking anyone to dumb down their responses, merely to do a quick review before posting to avoid this inference.

Carry on [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Thanks you very much Cerek for taking my question fairly and replying honestly and spiritually ! http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon10.gif http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon14.gif

But Yorick, humanity has invented writing, that is how we are able to profit from centuries of fellow humans experience ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

And if we can prove that the probability that a thing exists is infinitesimal, that's near enough proof that that thing does not - very very probably - exist ...

Quote:

Secondly, an atheist places their reality upon theists, by presuming their reality to apply to everyone - thus discrediting and devalidating the experience of someone who says they know God. Agnosticism does no such thing. Theism does no such thing. An agnostic view acknowledges there is potential for reality outside their own experience. I have never tried to say "You know God exists, you're just lying or insane" whereas an atheist by default says that to me. I agree with an atheist when they say they do not know God. You most assuredly do not. ;) I agree with an atheist when they say they have not experienced God. You most probably have not. If I did that would be devalidating your experience.

Where where did I state that I was an atheist ? I have stated twice in this very thread that I am an agnostic ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

And what has my question anything to do with atheism at all ? You people were discussing theology and science. IMO, questioning is maybe the most important basis of any scientific attitude, so I asked a rhetorical queston in that spirit. Seeing that that question was dodged, I thought it was interesting to ask it again. Rhetorically. Honestly. Without any hidden meaning. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oh, I realized that it would make you who believe in God defensive. I considered not asking it again, for fear that it would lead to aggressivity and unhappiness. But I decided to post it anyway, because there is no harm in a honest question.

And about atheists - sorry to disagree, but you both make assumptions, you that God does exist, atheists that He does not. Nothing wrong with that [img]smile.gif[/img] but if you feel that by making that assumption they "discredit and devalidate your experience by default" ... don't you believe that they feel the same from you ? ;)

Quote:

However, I know God. Denying his reality is impossible for me now. It would be like denying I am alive, or that I possess love.

Yes I understand and respect that. It is as valid an answer as Cerek's - finally. No need to go all aggressive on me. The question was not intended to make you feel bad - only to question. [img]smile.gif[/img]

*cough* Yorick *cough* don't get all worked up now *cough* uh sorry Mouse ... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Interesting. Evolutionists have faith in an unproven theory. Fair enough, why not? It's a good theory. Does this mean evolutionary scientists are not?

I’ll find another dictionary in that case.
It’s a contingent, not a necessary or absolute truth; In Fact, I think It may have reached Agrippa’s trilemma here.

I can go on giving reasons why theology is not a science forever and ever, using different sources to back that up each time,
I can just say, “Theology is not a science. Period” although of course that is dogmatic and people will scoff and small children will pursue me in the street banging pots and pans.
Or I could say that theology is not science because if it were a science it would be a science, But since it’s not a science it can’t be, but if it was a science it would be. Circular reasoning, and If I tried that I fear for the sanctity of my fridge.

HTH. HAND.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick: Dramnek is using the results of my observations and experiments as proof that my approach is not scientific, simply because he cannot accept the conclusions I have made. The different schools of psychology do not try and tell each other they are not true psychology simply because they have different outcomes. Why should Dramnek discredit my approach simply because he disagrees with my conclusions?

IKYABWAI? ;o)

You say, “Unproven” But there is a difference,
There is Evidence to back it (evolution) up. It is not proven in the sense that we can say, “Yes evolution is Definitely true” we cannot say anything is Definitely true, we can’t even prove that other people exist.

But there is good reason to think it is true, more so than any other of the alternatives, and that is the important thing. More so than any other alternative based on the sum of human experience.
So for this temporal moment, it is fair to say in colloquial usage that Evolution is true. It's only when we start getting all HARD CORE philosophical that we start having to engage chin stoking mode.

I would say for example that I have more reason to logically believe that the system of scientific observation that has given rise to Science and Evolution to be true, than for example placing blind faith in creationism.
(Though I still cannot be totally sure, but for everyday purposes rather than artificial philosophical ones, it holds as true until something better comes along)

[ 01-27-2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Eisenschwarz ]

Er, just one question here Yorick;
But wouldn´t a believer do the same in reverse as the Atheist ion your example? Doesn´t your belief and faith in God makes you see the world from that belief and the Atheist in it? Sorry, I might be grasping a straw here, but I didn´t like the phrasings really, and might also suit me right for reading the complete thread but oboy... This one grows...

I have always called myself an atheist, maybe I should be an agnostic. But I actually prefer to call my self a human without beliefs plain and simple, and thus, I have never placed much value to any descriptions. And as Cerek said above. I don´t think I would have changed. I still do what I think is right, and try to do my best.

And just for the argument of changing to a lighter side of the discussion: Congrats to the gig Yorick! When will be able to see you live in Göteborg?? :D

What do all those abbreviations mean, Eisen? Maybe I'm stupid for asking, but I doubt I'm the only one who doesn't know.

What do all those abbreviations mean, Eisen? Maybe I'm stupid for asking, but I doubt I'm the only one who doesn't know.</font>[/QUOTE]Hope This Helps.

Have A Nice Day.

I Know You Are But What Am I?

HTH. HAND. TIA.

Er, just one question here Yorick;
But wouldn´t a believer do the same in reverse as the Atheist ion your example? Doesn´t your belief and faith in God makes you see the world from that belief and the Atheist in it? Sorry, I might be grasping a straw here, but I didn´t like the phrasings really, and might also suit me right for reading the complete thread but oboy... This one grows...

I have always called myself an atheist, maybe I should be an agnostic. But I actually prefer to call my self a human without beliefs plain and simple, and thus, I have never placed much value to any descriptions. And as Cerek said above. I don´t think I would have changed. I still do what I think is right, and try to do my best.

And just for the argument of changing to a lighter side of the discussion: Congrats to the gig Yorick! When will be able to see you live in Göteborg?? :D </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks Wolf :D

There is a big diff between the statement "There is no God" and "I do not know God" or even "I have no experience of a God, and do not have any knowledge of one existing".

The latter two allow for anothers reality. The first - an atheistic statement - devalidates the experience of others.

In any case, atheists are wrong. ;) (I hear you Barry)

God exists. The very fact that we are talking about God proves that he exists - even as an abstract concept alone. You cannot talk about something which does not exist. WHERE God exists (Inside the human mind? Throughout all creation?) is a matter for discussion. WHAT God is (A mental creation? A creator awareness? A physical entity?) Is also open for discussion.

We do not know every vast reach of the universe. Just say for example, that there exists a part of the universe where the dreams, hopes and fears of humans are actually tangible. God would exist there because he exists in the minds of humans.

The argument then wuld not be whether he exists or not, but whether he exists IN THE WAY WE SAY HE DOES. Which is altogether different.

The point I am making is that you cannot know for certain anything does NOT exist. But you can that something does - relative to what existence is.

I am stating I know for certain God does exist in my life. I'm as certain as I am that love exists in my life.

When I make my statement, I do not devalidate your experience, but in stating unequivically that he does not exist anywhere - including my life - you devalidate mine. [img]smile.gif[/img] ;) :D

I’ll find another dictionary in that case.
It’s a contingent, not a necessary or absolute truth; In Fact, I think It may have reached Agrippa’s trilemma here.

I can go on giving reasons why theology is not a science forever and ever, using different sources to back that up each time,
I can just say, “Theology is not a science. Period” although of course that is dogmatic and people will scoff and small children will pursue me in the street banging pots and pans.
Or I could say that theology is not science because if it were a science it would be a science, But since it’s not a science it can’t be, but if it was a science it would be. Circular reasoning, and If I tried that I fear for the sanctity of my fridge.

[QB]</font>[/QUOTE]We're talking language Dramnek. Your opinion on what words mean holds no water. I've presented and used factual definitions. My definition and yours. Find another dictionary if you like and I will address that. AT the end of the day theologians will continue to use scientific method to reach their conclusions about a subject you have a problem with. THe METHOD not the SUBJECT is the issue, and this a point you seem reluctant to address.

Claude, I'm not feeling defensive towards you.. [img]smile.gif[/img] And if you say you're agnostic that's good enough for me. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm certainly not unhappy.

[ 01-28-2003, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Kathen, I'll say it again.

Not everyone with faith is a theologian, and not all theologians are people with faith.

You are conjoining the two. Theology is the study of God/doctrine/matters of divinity. Christianity involves knowing God on a personal level. Islam involves submission to God. There is a difference.

But we do have to keep in mind that there *are* Christians (or Muslims, or whatever) who do. They state God exists and people who say he doesn't are either lying or sadly deluded. They fall into the same category as atheists in this respect.
I agree that atheists ignore a possibilty which is there, and that they shouldn't do so, but the attitude you describe exists among the religious as well.</font>[/QUOTE]Agreed. The problem in that case is with the individual, not the belief system.

However, the problem I have is with the atheistic belief system itself, not with the individual per se.

Thanks for the reply Yorick and the explanation on the terminology here.

But still, the question stands;

An Atheist would by denying all possibilities of a god is kinda challaneging your reality by de facto. But wouldn´t all belivers of gods (not only christians) do the same by actually believing in god?? Since they take for granted there is a god that rules everything you put that values on the atheist as well?

DOn´t you see, if that is the case, then just by being a person you create a alienism towards each other.

OKI, I´m not an Atheist, that much I have concluded by this topic- I´m a no believer in that any word could alone possibly describe what I am or what I think. ;)

Hah! ;)

Theology IS a science.</font>[/QUOTE]Theology is NOT a science. It is a philosophy.

I’ll find another dictionary in that case.
It’s a contingent, not a necessary or absolute truth; In Fact, I think It may have reached Agrippa’s trilemma here.

I can go on giving reasons why theology is not a science forever and ever, using different sources to back that up each time,
I can just say, “Theology is not a science. Period” although of course that is dogmatic and people will scoff and small children will pursue me in the street banging pots and pans.
Or I could say that theology is not science because if it were a science it would be a science, But since it’s not a science it can’t be, but if it was a science it would be. Circular reasoning, and If I tried that I fear for the sanctity of my fridge.

[QB]</font>[/QUOTE]We're talking language Dramnek. Your opinion on what words mean holds no water. I've presented and used factual definitions. My definition and yours. Find another dictionary if you like and I will address that. AT the end of the day theologians will continue to use scientific method to reach their conclusions about a subject you have a problem with. THe METHOD not the SUBJECT is the issue, and this a point you seem reluctant to address.</font>[/QUOTE]TESTIFAH MA BROTHA!
Theology is not science, Sorry.
It’s a philosophy it seems.
Have you carried out scientific experiments to prove any of its presumptions?
Do theologians carry out scientific experiments to prove THEIR assumpumptions?
Please tell me when they do.
Do they for example test to see how powerful different types of praying are or similar?

TIA.HTH.

I just went to a seminar about this 3 weeks ago, given by a scientist whom by chance is a christian.
I wish I had the layout of his work, but as I said before Theology is not science in the imperical manner we eccept today, the abbility to test and retest ones theory and observations independently from the origanator. You can only test biblical text with prayer or faith (phylosophy). In a sense, I can understand a christians point in saying that god is provable by prayer, becouse I beleave the mind is a powerfull tool in any hoping, healing, loving, or any other emotion humans ocomplish. I guess I could even say that is the "inner god" as I've heard before.

[ 01-28-2003, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: LordKathen ]

Fair enough, I see what you mean. But I think that in this respect the two belief systems are similar. Many atheists do not think that Christians are deluded, many Christians do not think atheists are.

Anyway, on another point, it seems you guys are arguing a SINGLE WORD now, namely science. I think you'll just have to agree to disagree on the EXACT value of the word science and accept that a lot of words don't have an exact value (or literary critics would be out of a job [img]tongue.gif[/img] )
You are staring yourselves blind on this one definition because you think it holds implications for your personal view, but it's just a *word*. By most people's standards, my study (English Literature) is not a science, but it IS a social science. I don't mind which they call it, as long as they know what the study itself entails (which is often a problem for people ;) ).
So don't argue about a word, argue about content. What is theology in this modern age? What did it used to be?

From our world as it is now, I think we can deduct contemporary theology is a different thing from theology as practised for instance by Thomas Aquino.
Sorry LordK, going down to word level for a sec - one thing I know is that Theology is NOT a philosophy. That's just a completely different thing. They teach theology at my university, and while there is a specialiation course that educates people to be priests or ministers, the main course has nothing to do with people's personal beliefs. It STUDIES religion: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. It looks at parallels and differences, source texts, translations. Students are taught history, philosophy, languages. It is as much a science or as little as any other "social science". This is maybe not how theology was defined in the past, but it is the most logical sense of the word now. Possibly no science is 100% objective, because people come into it and people simply aren't objective. But that doesn't change the fact that Theology as taught today is NOT a philosophy (i.e. a way to look at the world, a way to regard and explain phenomena, a beliefsystem...).

That said, I really think you guys should get off the "Is a science is not is too" bandwagon. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere. ;)
Some people define science in the narrowest definition of the word, thinking labs, experiments, calculation, hard evidence. Some of you define it in the broadest possible sense, as in "anything studied by humans". Something can be said for both but that's not the point. The point is that the little yes-no game isn't going anywhere, and you can pull out all the dictionaries you want, you're not going to sway the other side. Can't you just agree that in the narrow sense as described above, theology is NOT a science, and in the broad sense it IS? Or are you just enjoying being in each other's hair all the time for no good reason and I'm just interrupting a perfectly senseless debate? In that case, don't mind me, carry on... [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D ;)
Oh and uh...
HAND all of you

:D

[ 01-28-2003, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

Well said Mel ! http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon14.gif [img]smile.gif[/img]

The etymology of the word "theology" comes from ancient Greek : "theos" = god, and "logos" = talking. Basically what theologists do is talking about god(s). [img]smile.gif[/img]

I believe this is part of the problem. There appears to be quite a few individuals who are not sure what they believe so they say they are atheist. If you are not sure, then by definition you are agnostic not atheist.

I posted this from page four so if someone else has said this I apologize.

For a bit more descriptions of what is what I found an interesting article as a sideline to this thread.

I hope that it is good reading for you who are interested in the differencies between an Agnostic and Atheist.

However, not knowing who this person who wrote it (the joy and danger of internet ;) ) I can´t say that this is ultimately true, or even politicly correct.

So take it for what it is. Enjoy:

http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E...l/agnostic.htm

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

The statement, “there is no god” can, as you stated, devaluate the experience of others. I insert that the statement, “there is a god” dose exactly the same thing. There are, most likely, individuals who have had life experiences that prove, to them, that there is no god.

“The very fact that we are talking about god proves that he exists”. I do not agree with this statement. The only thing that is proven by the fact that we are able to discuss a word is the fact that the word exists, not the meaning behind it.