Ok I haven't read every single response ;) so sorry...

Here though is the definition of theology from the Cambridge dictionary:
------

from Cambridge International Dictionary of English)

theology
noun
the study of religion and religious belief, or a set of beliefs about a particular religion
These new books on theology might interest you. [U]
Our theologies differ in several respects. [C]

theologian
noun [C]

theological
adjective
After graduating from Toronto University, he went to theological college, and in 1936 was ordained as a minister with the United Church of Canada.

theologically
adverb

-----

Ok and While I'm quoting dictionaries here is the definition for science:

---
science
noun
(knowledge obtained from) 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
pure/applied science [U]
a science course/lesson/teacher
a science laboratory
There is a shortage of maths and science graduates.
Developments in science and technology have made possible a great many improvements in areas such as health and public safety. [U]
Space travel is one of the marvels/wonders of modern science. [U]
----

Now we all know what are talking about :D

Note how theology has absolutely nothing to do with science...not that there is anything wrong with that!

[ 01-26-2003, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: esquire ]

Thanks esquire. Great post. [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img]

As a holder (and practitioner... I researched treatments to a cancer for one job, and studied evolutionary processes for several others) of two science degrees, I can proudly say, "I'm right here, baby." (;
But it IS a disputed theory... you could call it a fact, so long as you are willing to admit that a "fact" is not concrete.
Of COURSE it goes against other scientific facts! We're not omnipotent, we're searching for evidence. Science will adapt as more evidence smoothes out the details. BTW, as an ex-paleontologist, I can say that the second part of your statement (evolution working against probability theory, and several laws in physics) is not true.
Correct-a-mundo! ...EVERY scientist must allow him/herself to ponder "but what if...?" I completely allow for the possibility of a God (or Gods). There is much evidence for the existance of such! There is also counter-evidence.
Using the scientific method, or being grounded in science, while missing one of the KEY aspects of it, does NOT make one a scientist... although it's a good start! (;

[ 01-26-2003, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Gammit ]

You could therefore draw that Psychology is not a science from this.

Note that you don't have to be a believer to be a theologian. It is the study of religion and religious beliefs - a branch of sociology, which AFAICR, is still considered a science.

Sociology, Psychology, Theology and others are sciences based on humans and their thoughts, behaviours, actions etc... therefore, a different, yet still scientific approach to learning and research is taken than from say Physics.

Try to get two Psychologists to agree on anything... [img]smile.gif[/img]

EDIT: Do people agree that the study of all ancient texts is an important part of science? It's subject matter does not IMHO diminish it's relevance as a historical piece of literature.

[ 01-26-2003, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Leonis ]

Heh yes thats true, sociology and psychology are SOCIAL Sciences, that is
the study of all the features of society. When the features, such as politics and economics, are considered separately they are called the social sciences.■They are classified differently, and for good reason.

Theology is in no way part of Sociology! Let me whip out my old sociology textbook ;)

Sociology defines religion as: "a social institution involving beliefs and practices based on a conception of the sacred."

So, sociologists don't go though the bible looking to see if some prophet did what to who or whatever, they study how it effects culture, society, race, science, politics ect ect ect....
Sociology is basically the study of people in groups... in the macro sense, where psychology is more concerned with the individual, the micro.

They have separate schools for theology because it is separate. I have noticed however that many universities have separate departments devoted to religious studies.... but it is completely separate from sociology.

My major used to be sociology so this is why I'm making a big deal out of this, if you were to group one of my sociology professors into the same category as a theologian, I think they would get a little upset ;)

[ 01-26-2003, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: esquire ]

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.</font>[/QUOTE]Barry, I'm calling a spade a spade. It has nothing to do with opinions. I presented a FACT: The definition of what a word in the English language is, yet Dramnek kept arguing his opinion. If he's wrong he's wrong. The fact is that the English word "science' applies to theology, no matter how much an atheist may argue it is not so. On this case, the argument is not about worldview, but language. Science and faith are not opposite. Science and religion are not incompatible. Science can be part of faith and part of religion, just as faith can be part of the scientific method, and the scientific community.

Any attempt to belittle theology as valid scientific study is little other than an attempt to extend ones own atheistic reality onto others. It's prejudging the CONTENT rather than the METHOD of the field of study.

This is my first post in this thread, so I'm referring way back to Vaskez's initial question.

Why am I not religious as such? I simply choose not to commit myself to any one train of thought. I have never had any form of religious influence or pressure imposed upon me, which I am grateful for. It has given me breathing space, and allowed me to take in everything at my leisure. This way, I have grown to be interested in theology without any form of bias whatsoever. All I have done is step out of the religious melting pot and observe from a distance. I do not reject the idea that there is a God, or many Gods, for that matter; but neither do I embrace it.

I find every religion interesting. I have read many books on theology and of the various religions individually; it is not due to indifference that I do not follow a given faith. I respect all beliefs; from Islam to Bahai. I do not question people as to why they believe in what they do, or why they don't believe in things that others may feel they should.

I live my life day by day and do what I feel is right on a utilitarian basis. I do not act in the name of a given God or religion; I serve others and live quite simply under the maxim of 'treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated.' This way, if there is no God, I can die with a clear conscience, happy in the knowledge that I did my best for the human race. If there is a supreme being, He can't say I ever rejected Him; I merely waited until our meeting.

At the end of the day, belief is something so fundamentally personal, that to argue about it seems petty and unreasonable. It's like asking someone why they prefer a certain brand of coffee, or why they chose that particular kind of shirt to wear. That is why I hope my standpoint will be respected.

[ 01-27-2003, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Arledrian ]

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.</font>[/QUOTE]Barry, I'm calling a spade a spade. It has nothing to do with opinions. I presented a FACT: The definition of what a word in the English language is, yet Dramnek kept arguing his opinion. If he's wrong he's wrong. The fact is that the English word "science' applies to theology, no matter how much an atheist may argue it is not so. On this case, the argument is not about worldview, but language. Science and faith are not opposite. Science and religion are not incompatible. Science can be part of faith and part of religion, just as faith can be part of the scientific method, and the scientific community.

Any attempt to belittle theology as valid scientific study is little other than an attempt to extend ones own atheistic reality onto others. It's prejudging the CONTENT rather than the METHOD of the field of study.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure how you define 'science' but theology is no more a science than aroma therapy or chinese medicine are 'sciences'. You can't prove faith, you can't test it, they are subjective. Neither is one able to apply the scientific method to study religion...it doesn't work! So, here we are in the 21st century, and we have drawn a line to separate the two. The benefits become obvious when you consider how much science has advanced civilization in the past four hundred years.

To me it seems illogical to try to 'prove' religion using the scientific process because it simply can't be done. Similarly, there are not many scientists around the world trying to prove that god exists - that is for philosophers and theologins. Its perfectly possible to be religious/spiritual and also be an objective scientist, one just separates the two.

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.</font>[/QUOTE]Homer, I am NOT trying to convince anybody that their God is not real ! How presumptuous would that be ! ;) I don't know if a God exists or not. No, I only stated that in my opinion a scientist should accept that anything, I mean ANYTHING he currently thinks is true may be one day proven false by facts.

Antryg, I never said I agreed with everything that has been posted here, have I ? Neither do I agree with the aggressiveness that I see creeping up. :(

I have stated again and again that IMO the basis for a true scientific attitude are humility and open-mindedness. That does NOT allow for peremptory statements like science providing The Truth, or evolution being The Truth either. We don't know if there is such a thing as The Final Answer - or if humans are or ever will be equipped with mind and senses broad enough to be able to grasp it if there is ...

I do agree with your statement that a true scientist would at least allow for the possibility of God. And equally with the possibility that there is no God. I personnally stay open for both possibilities. I believe it would be incredibly presumptuous of me to state either one as a fact and try to convince anyone of the truth of it.

To state Confucius : "Know that you know nothing".

EDIT (I don't want to infringe the rules by making another post) :

BTW, nice post Gammit. [img]smile.gif[/img]

So far nobody believing in God has yet answered my simple question : How would you react if a fact proved to you without doubt that there cannot be a God ? Would you be willing to accept that fact ?

I would very much like to know what your answers would be. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-27-2003, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]