Discussion in 'Ancient History and Mythology' started by wil, Jan 19, 2016.
Nope. If I could, there'd probably be one to refute it ... I don't buy it, personally.
Generally, yes. But I have had a couple of specific instances that are telling, for me at least. Probability v synchronicity, I suppose.
Astrology may not be a separate religion but it is an intrinsic part of Hinduism. All Hindu religious ceremonies (including weddings) are scheduled for an auspicious astrological time. It is not talked about openly, but most major Indian government initiatives (including probably a space launch) are scheduled after checking astrological tables.
Most Hindu temples especially in South India have a pedestal with images of nine planets (the nine include the Sun and the Moon, but not the outer planets which were not known at the time). Devotees worship these images of nine planets and often circumambulate the pedestal. The Planets are not considered to be inanimate objects. Each planet is considered to be ensouled by a God (or Angel if you like) - the physical planet is just the God's body. That is why the planets (as Gods) can affect our lives.
Another way astrology is like religion And not like science... There are over 80 different forms.... This is over simplified but in science when something better, more accurate is discovered and proven it becomes the norm.,.. Of course their are some luddites that won't catch up to the metric system... But not many of us are still using Roman numerals for higher math, or still do medicine using the humours...
This has popped up so many times on this forum that you really should start remembering it. Thomas uses a wider definition of science than you, one that includes theology and any other body of knowledge and inquiry. Since you prescribe to a narrower, and dare I say modern, definition of science based on empiric measurements, and whatnot, astrology could never be considered a science in any way.
Thomas uses a faulty definition of science. Not different. Incorrect. Theology is not a science. And yes I know. No one who thinks otherwise is going to accept this. But there it is.
Hey DA, have a look at https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/is-theology-a-science/ sometime ...
This part stood out to me. Now 'Revelation' isn't a term I'm familiar enough with to use myself but it seems the author is kidnapping the physical world into a religious context which seems like cheating. Sort of like: God is in the sky > we went there with plains > he wasn't there so he doesn't exist.
Reading this article was an absolutely surreal experience for me. This is Alice down the rabbit hole logic. Twisted and distorted to the point that comparisons can be made where they do not actually exist. This article contains most all the points that show theology is NOT a science.
It seems fairly obvious that if theology is a science, it is a science that is different from the “normal” sciences we think of today (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).
So theology is what. An abnormal science? Can not this type of argument be used to 'prove' just about anything is a science? Black jack is a science, jut not the normal kind of science. Etc.
In other words, it (theology) became the science of what we can observe happening in human beings when confronted with the supernatural.
By this definition anything supernatural could be termed a science. How do people react to Big Foot. How do they react to Unicorns. Or UFOs. Any of this has the same foundation as the one proposed for theology - a very unsteady foundation indeed.
A second problem Berkhof raises is that science, like theology, is also dependent on revelation. Without a revealed world, science would have nothing to study.
This is word play pure and simple. Yes something revealed by science could be considered a revelation. But we both know that is a very different use of the word from biblical Revelation. The Revelation of religion is an entirely different animal. He is using two definitions of the same word as if they were one. Which they most assuredly are not.
A third problem is that the physical sciences and theology both have tests that can be performed. The physical sciences use the laboratory, whereas theology uses Scripture as a test.
And, of course, this is where the rubber hits the road. This exact line is why theology and science are two different things. Science performs tests on objects where the results are physical. Theology performs tests on Scripture where no accurate reading of the result can be made, aside from how much it aligns with Scripture.
In short, theology, when rightly defined, is a science, when science is understood in the above way.
Yah. When the concept of science is twisted so completely out of context it loses any meaning of what science is, then the two can be compared as equal. But only if the definition of science is twisted to be something it isn't.
Here is my question. One I really do not understand. Why this apparent need to make theology a science? What purpose does it serve to do this. Does it legitimize theology somehow? Religion is faith based. It doesn't need any legitimization. One believes or one does not.
We both agree that science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, or biblical revelations. Why is it so much to ask, therefor, that theology cannot use the science to prove Scripture.
This is the method of the apologetic, always attempting to make new discoveries shown in religious texts.
Science goes thru religious examination, peer review, repeat the experiment...they don't have faith the other is correct, they reprove it, they attempt to tear it apart and disprove it. Don't get excited about a depiction of an atom stain on a wall...
Lol....yes I don't accept religion as science...nor astrology as science....that is astronomy...
Yes, that's faith. Faith has no need of theology.
Theology isn't faith, theology is, in the words of Anselm, 'faith seeking understanding' – so it's a science in the manner by which it interrogates its subject. That the subject itself is beyond empirical determination makes the methodology different from the hard sciences, but theology still operates according to reason. logic, argument, etc.
Theology isn't using science to prove Scripture. It might refer to archeology (a science) or linguistics (a science) to argue aspects of the text. I've said often that Luke was long said to be riddled with errors, until the evidence began to emerge that said no, he was right, we didn't know ...
Theology argues the logic of Scripture and reasons the rationality of faith. It seeks to explain it, not prove it. That God exists or that the New Testament comprises Revelation, a New Covenant ... that's a matter of faith ...
All right, from your perspective I can understand how theology can be considered science-like. From mine it is more complicated to see it that way. The concept of 'rationalizing' faith is difficult. How does one rationalize faith when faith, by definition, requires none. If I understand your response correctly, part of it is seeking real historical evidence to back up what is stated in the Bible. Correct? In this sense I can accept the comparison to a science method.
The part that is more difficult for me is when the attempt is made to prove biblical text by comparing it to different, earlier texts. This can prove the texts are consistent. It cannot prove the texts are true, as, again, one cannot prove the end principle which is God, Jesus, etc. actually exists.
Theology is usually formed in the area of question, theologians answer questions for those asking questions, not for those who are comfortable in their faith.
When it can be, yes. Luke mentions names and places which for a long time were thought not to exist. Now we've discovered them, dig sites unmoving settlements, coins bearing titles that Luke mentions which everyone thought were fanciful. Of course this is all incidental.
Quite. There's quite a discussion here 'is the Bible corrupted' and of course the answer is, there is no proof nor evidence ... simple as that. The web is awash with supposed errors, contradictions, etc., etc., but if you ask the scholars, you get a different story.
I suppose it's where one draws the line. Philosophy was considered a science for centuries, now it's not. Personally, I'm happy to accept that theology is not a science if philosophy is not a science, but then both (which were once one) are the Fathers of science ... and now we live in the days when Junior is just showing off and strutting his stuff ... due to Hume, Kant and the like, but in in the popular realm, it's the tyranny of the empirical method – if it can't be measured it can't exist, that sort of thing.
I've just discovered Paul Feyerabend – http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feyerabend/#2.13
Good fun. There's an echo there of the female scientist who said that whilst there is much to commend the origin of the species, the idea of survival of the fittest as being the engine of evolution is the kind of thing a male, white, elite would come up with, because it reflects and validates their social history. Neither she nor I are saying that there's no truth to it, just that it's not the whole truth, nor necessarily the most truthful element, or the most important.
The earth survives, we are told, cos bees pollinate flowers. No survival of the fittest there, its a symbiosis ...
Separate names with a comma.