01-27-2003, 04:07 PM
|
#102
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
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.
|
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)
|
|
|
|