Agreed Antryg. Well said.

This thread is STILL going? Once again I have lost the entire plot of the last 20 or so posts but I may as well post an (most likely allready stated) opinion on science just for the hell of it! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
From what yet more or Gods own teachings hove told us - religion and science must work togeather to make the world a better place. Using science to disprove religion and religion to hinder science will just lead us around in circles while if they both healp each other and work towards the same goal (the betterment of humanity) then we could achieve amazing feats!
Of cours this it probably totally off the current topic but it just felt good to get that out. [img]smile.gif[/img]

You’re trying to frame the question, What you describe is how some people treat science. We can make a religion out of anything, Government can become a religions, Communism and fascism etc

The basis of science is Pancritical thinking, and this can never be made absolute and it is especially valid where it can itself be subject to criticism. However, Theology is not a science since it is based on wholly dogmatic Principles, since it presupposes the Truth and authority of the word of god. You may describe theology as what you will but it does not involve scientific thought and it is based on Dogma.

Let me quote from a theologian: “As the Science of faith, it regards the statements of faith as its object, which it cannot of it’s own accord, either produce or do away with. It has rather to serve them by creating through methodical thought, a deeper understanding and a more lively personal appropriation of those statements of faith, which are RECEIVED BY THE CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN FROM THE CHURCH. The Church in turn is consciously BOUND TO THE TWOFOLD BUT SINGLE WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION... THEOLOGY PRESUPPOSES FAITH”

(Capitals mine, Note the extensive Dogma revealed therein, Dogmatic points may also be found amongst theologians from other Christian sects) Theology essentially reduces mans reason to an instrument which has to assimilate and reproduce dogma quite uncritically, for example as you can see above, The catholic theologian does not set out to find information or discover things, but rather becomes the puppet to the churches strings, he simply becomes something to try and justfiy their already held veiws.

Critical thought simply becomes something, which is formalized into an instrument to reach previously given aims i.e. intentional rationality. So all Theology does is simply try to develop a given presumption, It does not use the scientific method, insofar as it dogmatically accepts the presumption (the Truth and authority of God) as the absolute truth.

[ 01-26-2003, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Eisenschwarz ]

Nah Antryg, you cannot say that. [img]smile.gif[/img] A true scientist accepts that ANY of the current hypothesis may be proven false when new facts are discovered. Thus he cannot have 'beliefs' like "Science will eventually find the answer". I for one do not think that someday we will know everything there is to know, because so far, every 'answer' raised ten times more questions. Like "All creation comes from the Big Bang" raising the next questions you mentioned. ;)

You theologists work on the assumption that there is a God behind creation. How would you react if a fact proved to you without doubt that there cannot be a God ? Would you be willing to accept hat fact ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

I do not believe anyone who truly believes in a god is ever going to accept that fact. You will not be able to prove it to that person, regardless of the facts you might present. As I had stated earlier, faith is based on acceptance without proven facts.

To someone who believes in a god, that god is as real as your vehicle, house, television, and excreta. Someone might be able to present all kinds of facts as to why these things do not exist, but obviously you can see them so they must exist. I insert that individuals who truly believe in a god are able to see them, in their own way. Therefore, you could never convince them that there god is not real.

Moraine- Where is your true scientist? They obviously aren't posting on this thread. Again and again I keep hearing that science will provide the real answer. "Evolution is an undisputed fact." That sentiment keeps getting posted as well. Let's just ignore the fact that evolution as a theory goes against other scientific facts such as probability theory and several laws in physics. If we accept your definition of a true scientist then a true scientist would at least allow for the possibility of God. You are correct that a Christian theologian would start out from the premise that there is God. All that shows is that a theologian is not a true scientist by your definition. It does not show that theologian cannot use the scientific method or have a grounding in science.
Eisenschwartz-please define your buzzword pancritical. If your arguement hinges upon a quote then please tell us who you are quoting. It is hard to refute or give weight to an unattributed quote. (ex. a prominent psychiatrist stated "Anybody that goes by a user name such as Eisenschwartz is a pathological liar.") Such an example is worthless; quote marks do not give validity or authority. You are correct in that systems of government can also be seen as expressions of religion. From your posts, I would assert that you do not have an understanding what theology is or how it is done.

All science is based on assumptions. Natural science for example, is based on the assumption that the earth is a physical entity and not an individuals mental construct for example.

Science is an approach. One can approach knowing God scientifically or not.

You’re trying to frame the question, What you describe is how some people treat science. We can make a religion out of anything, Government can become a religions, Communism and fascism etc

The basis of science is Pancritical thinking, and this can never be made absolute and it is especially valid where it can itself be subject to criticism. However, Theology is not a science since it is based on wholly dogmatic Principles, since it presupposes the Truth and authority of the word of god. You may describe theology as what you will but it does not involve scientific thought and it is based on Dogma.

Let me quote from a theologian: “As the Science of faith, it regards the statements of faith as its object, which it cannot of it’s own accord, either produce or do away with. It has rather to serve them by creating through methodical thought, a deeper understanding and a more lively personal appropriation of those statements of faith, which are RECEIVED BY THE CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN FROM THE CHURCH. The Church in turn is consciously BOUND TO THE TWOFOLD BUT SINGLE WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION... THEOLOGY PRESUPPOSES FAITH”

(Capitals mine, Note the extensive Dogma revealed therein, Dogmatic points may also be found amongst theologians from other Christian sects) Theology essentially reduces mans reason to an instrument which has to assimilate and reproduce dogma quite uncritically, for example as you can see above, The catholic theologian does not set out to find information or discover things, but rather becomes the puppet to the churches strings, he simply becomes something to try and justfiy their already held veiws.

Critical thought simply becomes something, which is formalized into an instrument to reach previously given aims i.e. intentional rationality. So all Theology does is simply try to develop a given presumption, It does not use the scientific method, insofar as it dogmatically accepts the presumption (the Truth and authority of God) as the absolute truth.</font>[/QUOTE]No matter what you think, the English language disagrees with you. Theology, however much you may argue IS by definition a science. I posted the definition of science, and theology certainly fits it. Don't be trying to change the entire language just to fit it in your theology. You are wrong pure and simple.

Yorick, I don't mean to be nasty here but was there any need for that? Whatever you think about the idea Eisendram is putting forwards this comment is just going to push the two of you into bitter recriminations. Its not actual flaming, but it also adds nothing to your argument. I read the rest of your post and thought you were being very reasonable, but this line just makes me think you want a fight. I know you don't, and its clear from your other posts that you do respect other peoples opinions, so why did you have to write this?

I don't want to attack you, or make you think I don't like you or something, but I want to voice my opinion that that comment was entirely unecessary and liable to turn this argument sour.

[img]graemlins/hidesbehindsofa.gif[/img]
Even my gibbies are getting nervous.