SusanDoris: It is far, far more interesting than listening to some double-glazing people who were here this afternoon to give me a quote!:
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Yes, the definition of theology does seem to be mainly about 'the nature of God' and 'religious belief' and there is plenty of information about the latter.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Somebody will probably come along shortly to tell you what all the disciplines within a Theology study are. I only studied it for one year, but I have the feeling that only very little of it is dedicated to a study of God.
quote:Well, he doesn't go quite that far! but is clear that there is always a possibility- though remote - of a God which can be objectively studied. (I am not quoting exactly.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Does he subscribe to the view that science doesn't really tell us about reality, but is only really a series of best guesses at what works? A view upheld by rather a lot of atheists in the 'less wrong' tradition. In other words, that scientists don't know anything about science.
quote:Thank you - that is a most interesting point of view and it seems to apply well, with or without including god. I have in fact already read and thought about it (i.e. your post) several times.
What does anyone in the humanities know? They take what people in previous generations have said reflecting on the way humans live and talk and think, and then they reflect upon that as part of the way in which humans live and talk and think. Which is harder to get right than studying rocks or cells, but is nevertheless an intellectual endeavour grounded in reality.
Theology is all that, thinking on the basis that some people have found that the best way to talk about how humans live and talk and think is on the assumption of God. But the idea that God is unable as God is is a fairly mainstream view within the theological traditions of most religions. In that sense, theology is not an attempt to know things about God.
quote:Like I said, I only studied it for one year (I started Theology as a part-time study when I was living in the Netherlands, but I stopped it when I got a job in Honduras), but I doubt if much of Theology is about 'the nature of God' either.
SusanDoris: Yes, the definition of theology does seem to be mainly about 'the nature of God' and 'religious belief' and there is plenty of information about the latter.
quote:My personal answer is, I agree, but I'll add a word to the question: What do today's senior Theologians know about
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
SusanDoris you don't believe in God. Hence the answer is self-evident.
quote:There are plenty of senior theologicians on the Ship, so I hope they'll be able to answer you, but my guess is that when they answer this question honestly they'll say: "not a lot".
SusanDoris:What do today's senior Theologians know about God.
quote:No, there isn't. Theologians agree that there is no possibility of God being studied objectively, because a God like that would be an object, a thing within the universe, something that might or might not exist, and God isn't like that.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
it is clear that there is always a possibility- though remote - of a God which can be objectively studied.
quote:In the short time I studied theology, there were a number of atheists there. They weren't studying religion as a bizarre phenomenon but as an entity that obviously had and still has a lot of influence in human history and culture.
Ricardus: (FWIW all the theology students I knew were either candidates for the ministry or else atheists studying religion as a bizarre anthropological phenomenon.)
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by hatless:
Theologians are generally biblical scholars, historians, philosophers, literary scholars, etc. They write about the phenomenon of faith. People who think about life and living it, they are the theologians, especially those who don't believe in God.
quote:Thank you for the link. I wonder how many students, coming from a sceptical point of view, stand up and query where God is in all this?!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Like I said, I only studied it for one year (I started Theology as a part-time study when I was living in the Netherlands, but I stopped it when I got a job in Honduras), but I doubt if much of Theology is about 'the nature of God' either.
SusanDoris: Yes, the definition of theology does seem to be mainly about 'the nature of God' and 'religious belief' and there is plenty of information about the latter.
In the first year, you get to do subjects like Greek, Hebrew, introduction to Philosophy, introduction to Church History, Old Testament, Religion and Society ... None of that is much about studying God or studying the nature of God.
Here is the Table of Contents of the latest Oxford Journal of Theological Studies, to give you an idea of what theologicians are talking about at a high level. I don't see much about studying God or studying the nature of God there either.
quote:So I can't help wondering then why they believe in God, ;i.e. the Christian one, since I presume they do not believe in any others.
Theological students and professors are well aware of the fact that God can't be studied by repeatable experiments; that's not what they're trying to do.
quote:Ah, but I would imagine that at the very root of simple, basic maths, the numbers are there! However, at the very basis of theology, I think that there is not even a proto-God.
My first university degree was in Mathematics. When I was studying that, many friends and relatives said to me: "You must be using some very big calculators to study all those numbers!" (this was before computers became ubiquitous). I can tell you that I haven't studied numbers at all in those 9 years of doing Mathematics. I never used a calculator, nor a spread sheet later. My MPhil thesis doesn't contain a single number.
For the most part, mathematicians don't study numbers. And for the most part, theologicians don't study God. Not in a direct way, in any case.
quote:Do you think that is a good thing? What gives them the confidence to be so credulous, do you think?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
According to you, nothing - because God doesn't exist.
It is fairly obvious that deist theologians take as a given that God exists.
quote:Sounds like a practical, down-to-earth chap!
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I knew someone at university who had wanted to study philosophy, but whose parents told him to study theology instead on the grounds that that way he could at least get a job as a vicar.
He complied with their wishes but chose all the modules with the greatest philosophical content, and thus ended up doing basically the course he'd originally wanted to do.
quote:
FWIW all the theology students I knew were either candidates for the ministry or else atheists studying religion as a bizarre anthropological phenomenon.)
quote:I don't think credulous is the right word, because I don't accept your bias that God doesn't exist.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Do you think that is a good thing? What gives them the confidence to be so credulous, do you think?
quote:To really know God is a transcendent mystical experience and will only happen in its fullness in the beatific vision. It is not limited to theologians.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
However, at one point he asked what do Theologians know - i.e. really know - about God. He supposed that a top Theologian would be one who knows what all other top Theologians had said about God
quote:And I should have said something about 'one must always allow for this possibility.
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:No, there isn't. Theologians agree that there is no possibility of God being studied objectively,...
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
it is clear that there is always a possibility- though remote - of a God which can be objectively studied.
quote:How can you tell?
... because a God like that would be an object, a thing within the universe, something that might or might not exist, and God isn't like that.
quote:Just so! Well said. The world and the uni verse is totally exciting and wonderful and needs no imagined extra complexity. It is the evolved human species that is able to think all this.
I think that to understand God you have to begin by disbelieving in God. Don't cling on to the idea that just maybe there really is a God. Say big and proud, there is no God. God does not exist. The universe is as empty as Loch Ness. Nothing lurks there at the edges of perception. The scientists are right, disappointing though it may be at a fairies and Santa level. We've got to accept it and get on with living and dying in this bleak and forbidding world. Beautiful, too, of course. And very interesting, that's true. And morally challenging, of course, and there are people who find it deeply fulfilling. But basically just a world, with stars and proteins and electricity and fashions and stuff.
quote:For me the final erasure of the tiny spot in my brain that held God was a feeling of wholeness, completeness.
Then, when you've started to feel properly lonely and grown-up though small, you can start to wonder about God. Is there anything you want to take with you into this empty universe? Might you insist on hope, for instance, feeling that even if it's futile it brings out the best in you?
quote:But all the credit belongs to humans and should be so ascribed. Of course, we have the right and the freedom to believe things, but my bottom line here is it is a mistake to tell children this is true.
Would you say that those who mistakenly believe in a God of love seem, somehow, to have got something right, even though they are obviously wrong? Is that a mistake you might wantonly choose to make, for the hell of it, because it affirms humanity, because a laugh is better than a sigh?
And so you start to add content to the word God, which designates nothing at all, but carries a rich freight of story and allusion. And God makes sense not as something in addition to all thus, but as a way of speaking about all this. A God who does not exist, and about whom you can really say nothing, but by whom and only by whom, you can say the most important things of all about all this.
quote:Again, my bottom line here is with regard to what children are told is true and if they are told they should believe there is something called God who loves them., then I think that is not right.
Theologians are generally biblical scholars, historians, philosophers, literary scholars, etc. They write about the phenomenon of faith. People who think about life and living it, they are the theologians, especially those who don't believe in God.
quote:In my experience, not many. I also don't see very well why they should. I gave you the list of things I studied in my first year of Theology, and the table of contents of an important theological magazine. Have you had a look at those?
SusanDoris: I wonder how many students, coming from a sceptical point of view, stand up and query where God is in all this?!
quote:Like many times when discussing things with you, I wonder if you're really interested in hearing my answer to this question, or just waiting for a chance to turn it back on me "See? It's not scientific!" I know that my faith is not based on scientific evidence. I'm perfectly fine with that.
SusanDoris: So I can't help wondering then why they believe in God, ;i.e. the Christian one, since I presume they do not believe in any others.
quote:When I gave my mathematics example, I didn't want to discuss the reality of numbers vs. the reality of God, interesting as that may be.
SusanDoris: Ah, but I would imagine that at the very root of simple, basic maths, the numbers are there! However, at the very basis of theology, I think that there is not even a proto-God.
quote:But no-one has ever started a religion based on his existence - whichno one doubts anyway, even if they believe someone else wrote parts of his plays!
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
What do those who study Shakespeare know about him? They know what others have said and written, they know what impact his writings have had, they know a little about his life history (or do they?), and they glean from his writings, and that of others about him at the time, what made him tick.
quote:It makes no difference to world factual history whether he did or didn't. No-one baptises children into a Shakespeare cult, no-one makes laws about people's personal behaviour because of what he might or might not have said, etc.
But what do they really know about him? Is there any point in studying him? Perhaps he was always an imaginary figure. What proof is there that he did exist?
quote:Thank you, however, here, I will defer to your understanding of the language of philosophy. Not having done a proper study course, but having only read things here and there, I'm definitely shaky on the terms to use.
Originally posted by Sipech:
At the risk of derailing the conversation, can we clarify what we mean by the word know. How strict are we being with epistemological wiggle-room?
quote:I like your post! Can you say why you are prepared to do that?
Originally posted by shamwari:
Theology is the attempt to understand God in the light of reason; tradition, experience and scripture.
Of course if God doesn't exist then theology becomes an interesting but irrelevant exercise.
The existence of God cannot be proved and it is a waste of time trying to do so. All we have got is evidence which can be variously interpreted.
God is a matter of faith, not fact. Believing is a reasoned gamble. Its one I am prepared to take.
quote:I wouldn't say I'm a "senior theologian" (not really sure what that would be) but I do teach theology in a university setting. And contrary to your expectations, it's not all that unusual for a student to ask "where is God in all this?". It's actually a very good question. Some of us even bid our students to ask that question any time they feel we've gotten off track-- spent so much time "focusing on the objective things" that we've lost track of the center.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:In my experience, not many. I also don't see very well why they should. I gave you the list of things I studied in my first year of Theology, and the table of contents of an important theological magazine. Have you had a look at those?
SusanDoris: I wonder how many students, coming from a sceptical point of view, stand up and query where God is in all this?!
I guess that sometimes during Theology class, a student stands up and asks: "Where is God in all this?!" I imagine that the professors would answer something like: "We can't really say something objectively about that, so let's concentrate on some things we can say objective things about."
quote:I suppose that's true, in the same way that a top physicist would know all the things the other physicists had said about physics, or a top mathematician would know all the things the other mathematicians had said about mathematics.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
However, at one point he asked what do Theologians know - i.e. really know - about God. He supposed that a top Theologian would be one who knows what all other top Theologians had said about God
quote:Perhaps you have missed the point I am making, which is to address your original question about knowing God through the study of theology and not to talk about world factual history. (I wonder why you don't doubt the existence of Shakespeare, or accept that his writing has made an impact on the world, but that is beside the point.)
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:But no-one has ever started a religion based on his existence - whichno one doubts anyway, even if they believe someone else wrote parts of his plays!
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
What do those who study Shakespeare know about him? They know what others have said and written, they know what impact his writings have had, they know a little about his life history (or do they?), and they glean from his writings, and that of others about him at the time, what made him tick.quote:It makes no difference to world factual history whether he did or didn't. No-one baptises children into a Shakespeare cult, no-one makes laws about people's personal behaviour because of what he might or might not have said, etc.
But what do they really know about him? Is there any point in studying him? Perhaps he was always an imaginary figure. What proof is there that he did exist?
quote:Well said, and spot on IMHO.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I watched the video clip in its entirety and realised, not for the first time, how greatly the issues of evolutionism and creationism have polarised thought across the Atlantic. I'm pretty much on Jerry Coyne's side in his views on the importance of critical thought and the extent to which creationist proponents seek to find evidence for prior beliefs. But furthering that discussion is a Dead Horse. It's actually been discussed in great depth in The Death of Darwinism and the great majority of Christians here who have participated in that discussion regard creationists, particularly those supporting Intelligent Design conceptions, as polemicists, rather than serious scientific enquirers or critics.
So I think Jerry Coyne, rather like Sam Harris, criticises theologians and people of faith more on the basis of a USA experience. Which is a bit of a shame, since his criticisms of faith seemed to me to be polemical ("you can't have a serious debate with these people because ...") rather than exploratory. He's made his mind up.
On the specific point, I think Jerry Coyne seems to have a very limited understanding of what serious theologians actually do. But perhaps more seriously, I agree the observation that in general serious theologians would know that there is a common belief at work in the minds of believers. It is that God cannot be grasped by the human mind. Therefore what we talk about are the ways in which believers believe that God has revealed attributes of himself. This is a much more humble pursuit than somehow thinking we can know more than in part.
The other point is that IME all serious theologians I read these days employ critical thinking in their work. They do not necessarily accept anything purely "on authority". From listening to him, I think Jerry Coyne assumes that people of faith may have received inadequate training in critical thought, otherwise they would see, as he does that "science and faith are incompatible". That again is a polemical assertion.
quote:Yeah, I don't like how realists want to indoctrinate our children. The proper thing to do is to expose them to both realism and idealism then allow them to come to their own conclusions. Doing anything else is child abuse.
originally posted by hatless:
We should tell them that the world is as it appears to our senses, to science and maths and the rest, and include the mysteries, which are important, too: music, consciousness, origin and end of it all, etc. And we should tell them stories about beauty, wonder, courage, kindness and loyalty.
quote:I assure you that (a) I always read your post when I'm following a topic in which you are posting, and (b) I am always interested in what you have to say. I appreciate that it is unlikely we would agree on quite a few things, but the activity of reading and posting here is one that I value. (When The Atheist read my posts in JREF, he said that he thought I would find the discusssions on Ship of Fools interesting – he was right!(He got banned from jref”” But now that it is IS, he’s re-joined.)
Originally posted by LeRoc:.
Like many times when discussing things with you, I wonder if you're really interested in hearing my answer to this question, or just waiting for a chance to turn it back on me "See? It's not scientific!" I know that my faith is not based on scientific evidence. I'm perfectly fine with that.
quote:That is similar to my childhood experience too, but I moved gradually away from belief, due to circumstances and experiences.
But if you do want to know: I believe in God because I grew up as a Christian. My parents started taking me to church as a child, and when I grew older and learned to think about this for myself, I found Christianity and the example of Jesus touched something within me in a very inspiring way. That's why I believe in it.
quote:There are a few members here whose posts I hardly ever respond to, but not many. Apart from the fact that I don't want to miss anything, there would be a big gap in my life if this and a couple of other forums were not part of it.
[But my sincere question to you is: did my answer really interest you? Or is it just fodder for you to prove that I'm not being scientific?
quote:Agreed – no problems there.
quote:When I gave my mathematics example, I didn't want to discuss the reality of numbers vs. the reality of God, interesting as that may be.
SusanDoris: Ah, but I would imagine that at the very root of simple, basic maths, the numbers are there! However, at the very basis of theology, I think that there is not even a proto-God.
What I was trying to show, is that there are many people who naively think that Mathematics is mainly about studying numbers. It isn't.
In the same way, many people naively think that Theology is mainly about studying God. It isn't.
quote:Yes, of course.
From your posts on the Ship, you say that you love Science. Great; so do I. As you'll agree with me, science works on the basis of hypotheses. Your working hypothesis seems to be: "Theology is about studying God." Are you willing to look at this hypothesis critically?
quote:fwiw, I have a similar feeling as LeRoc, and it doesn't seem to me that you really answered his question here. Since it's a question I share, I'd really be interested in your answer. At this point I think we can all agree that a.) religious beliefs are not based on empirical scientific data. b.) you don't share our (believers) desire to engage beliefs not based on empirical scientific data. I don't see any reason to continue to go round & round repeating those two rather self-evident statements. Given that we all understand those two things, what more is there to be said? What are you hoping to gain from our conversations?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:I assure you that (a) I always read your post when I'm following a topic in which you are posting, and (b) I am always interested in what you have to say. I appreciate that it is unlikely we would agree on quite a few things, but the activity of reading and posting here is one that I value.
Originally posted by LeRoc:.
Like many times when discussing things with you, I wonder if you're really interested in hearing my answer to this question, or just waiting for a chance to turn it back on me "See? It's not scientific!" I know that my faith is not based on scientific evidence. I'm perfectly fine with that.
quote:Yes, I believe that you always read my posts, and I appreciate that you always take the time to answer them. It happens rather often on the Ship that I'm in a conversation with someone who doesn't reply to what I say, and that can be irritating sometimes. I'm quite confident that this usually doesn't happen with you, and that's a good thing. Thank you for that.
SusanDoris: I assure you that (a) I always read your post when I'm following a topic in which you are posting, and (b) I am always interested in what you have to say.
quote:I have no idea who The Atheist is, or what JREF and IS are, but I believe you
SusanDoris: (When The Atheist read my posts in JREF, he said that he thought I would find the discusssions on Ship of Fools interesting – he was right!(He got banned from jref”” But now that it is IS, he’s re-joined.)
quote:I have no problem with that. I'm OK with it, and I wish you good luck as an atheist.
SusanDoris: That is similar to my childhood experience too, but I moved gradually away from belief, due to circumstances and experiences.
quote:That's great. I hope that you won't mind that I expand on this a bit.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:quote:Yes, of course.
From your posts on the Ship, you say that you love Science. Great; so do I. As you'll agree with me, science works on the basis of hypotheses. Your working hypothesis seems to be: "Theology is about studying God." Are you willing to look at this hypothesis critically?
quote:This is very good.
Originally posted by shamwari:
Upstream I said that believing in God was a gamble I am prepared to take.
Susan D asked why.
Basically because the alternatives are an even greater gamble.
quote:I liked the way Jerry Coyne spoke conversationally and moderately but firmly. I’ve had a quick look at the link and the OP; I see it dates to 2001, I’ll read through later.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I watched the video clip in its entirety and realised, not for the first time, how greatly the issues of evolutionism and creationism have polarised thought across the Atlantic. I'm pretty much on Jerry Coyne's side in his views on the importance of critical thought and the extent to which creationist proponents seek to find evidence for prior beliefs. But furthering that discussion is a Dead Horse. It's actually been discussed in great depth in The Death of Darwinism and the great majority of Christians here who have participated in that discussion regard creationists, particularly those supporting Intelligent Design conceptions, as polemicists, rather than serious scientific enquirers or critics.
quote:Can you elaborate on why you think this is so?
On the specific point, I think Jerry Coyne seems to have a very limited understanding of what serious theologians actually do. But perhaps more seriously, I agree the observation that in general serious theologians would know that there is a common belief at work in the minds of believers. It is that God cannot be grasped by the human mind.
quote:Except, maybe, the assumption that God is?!
The other point is that IME all serious theologians I read these days employ critical thinking in their work. They do not necessarily accept anything purely "on authority".
quote:Not what they know, but what they know about God (as you go on to say in next sentence).
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, just as it would be impossible to summarize on this thread everything that is known about physics or mathematics, it's similarly impossible to answer your question "what do theologians know?".
quote:But 'said' or proposed' falls short of 'knowing', don't you think?,
We can give you are top few things-- the 2 or 3 things we think are most important in the list of things that theologians have said or proposed about God. But that would be very incomplete and simplistic ...
quote:Ah, I see what you mean. As Theologians are studying ‘the nature of God’, then they would already Believe that there was a God to study, wouldn’t they?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps you have missed the point I am making, which is to address your original question about knowing God through the study of theology …
quote:I wonder what you think it is that makes you and millions of others accept the existence of God? More and more now is known about how humans experience feelings etc; experiences believed as being connected with God are natural too.
…and not to talk about world factual history. (I wonder why you don't doubt the existence of Shakespeare, or accept that his writing has made an impact on the world, but that is beside the point.)
The point I was making is that one doesn't actually get to know a person from all that others have said, but one does come to find out a lot about them from what others have experienced of them, and from what they have said themselves.
quote:Thank you.
In the same way, we can find out a lot more about God by studying theology, but to know God would only happen if we spent time with God.
quote:So do, some don't. I'm a member of AAR (American Academic of Religion), the leading academic organization in the field at least in the US. I've heard scholarly papers presented by theologians on both side of that equation.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Ah, I see what you mean. As Theologians are studying ‘the nature of God’, then they would already Believe that there was a God to study, wouldn’t they?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps you have missed the point I am making, which is to address your original question about knowing God through the study of theology …
quote:Whether I completely disagree with others' opinions or not, I find the communication always interesting. Hearing what other people think, believe and feel is perennially interesting. I agree that the liklihood of my ever stepping back into a religious belief are as near zero as makes no difference, but having been a believer myself, having friends and acquaintances whose beliefs range from nominal to unwavering, I shall not be losing interest in the discussions until I die! I did not mention family here, as they are all non-believers!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well I have a similar feeling as LeRoc, and it doesn't seem to me that you really answered his question here. Since it's a question I share, I'd really be interested in your answer.
quote:I don't know, but I'll keep reading andlooking! Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you think I do not'engage' beliefs, could I not say that the opposite applies to believers here?
At this point I think we can all agree that a.) religious beliefs are not based on empirical scientific data. b.) you don't share our (believers) desire to engage beliefs not based on empirical scientific data. I don't see any reason to continue to go round & round repeating those two rather self-evident statements. Given that we all understand those two things, what more is there to be said?
quote:I'm not hoping to 'gain' anything; I simply enjoy the exchange of posts with interesting people. Seriously, message boards (the four I go to) have been something of a life-saver, over the past ten years I don't know what I'd be doing otherwise.
What are you hoping to gain from our conversations?
quote:Well, I just have to ask - what are the alternatives to which you refer?!
Originally posted by shamwari:
Upstream I said that believing in God was a gamble I am prepared to take.
Susan D asked why.
Basically because the alternatives are an even greater gamble.
quote:Helped is not the right word, really. I'm not actually looking for anything. I just love being involved in conversation, discussion, communication with interesting people, whether I agree with them or not. It is far, far more interesting than listening to some double-glazing people who were here this afternoon to give me a quote!:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I can't help being curious though. You asked "So I can't help wondering then why they believe in God." I gave you an answer of how this worked out in my case. Has my answer helped you in any way?
quote:Yes, definitely.
....one of the things I said that theologians study is Church History. I think you'll agree with me that this is something that can be studied in an objective way (at least as objective as the disciplines of History and Sociology can be).
quote:Yes, I see what you mean,, and agree, but one has to bear in mind that churches and religions exist because of a belief in a God. This belief requires 100% subjective, faith.
Also, I hope you can agree with me that the question "does God exist?" isn't really relevant when studying Church History. Whether the things the church believes in are true or not, its history and the impact it has had (and still has) on society is something that can be studied.
quote:Okay, no argument there.
Now onto something more complex. Suppose a theologian studies something like "the differences between the concepts of God that people had in 600 BC and in the 21ˢᵗ Century". Of course, you're an atheist. You believe that the concepts we have of God are human constructs and nothing more. I am a Christian and I believe that these concepts relate to something real.
But that doesn't matter much when we want to study these concepts. We can study the differences between 6CBC and 21C concepts whether they relate to something real or not.
quote:Again, no argument. However, don't you think they should spend some of their time defining, substantiating, providing one piece of information which would remove any doubt that god is not in fact a human idea? Otherwise it seems to me that they are evading the question and are relying entirely on what people have thought and said.
In my (admittedly limited) experience, this is what theologians do. Regardless of how they feel about it personally, theologians they leave the question "does God exist?" open in their scientific work. There are plenty of things you can study without answering that question.
quote::)That's interesting! Yes, he does like to create a ripple here and there, doesn't he? I'll never go to NZ again, but if I did, I'd definitely drop in and say hello!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
We have an SoF member called The Atheist who contributed unrestfully here for a while a few years ago but stopped contributing a while back. Maybe he got bored with us? He's still on the books so he definitely didn't get banned.
quote:I know. Having read yours and Le roc's posts for years,I would not think of them as anything other than interesting, so thank you.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Susan, I didn't mean to sound petulant or rude-- and I'm sure LeRoc didn't either.
quote:No idea at the moment!!!
I'm just at a loss about what the point of the conversation is when it just seems doomed to continue in the same endless cycle that's getting tiresome. Can we move past the "you folks believe in something that can't be empirically proven" meme? We know it, you know it, you don't like/get it, we know you don't like/get it. Now what?
quote:I really don't think you see what I mean. You don't seem to have got past the idea that theology is about whether or not God exists. It is not. Therefore we are talking past each other.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Ah, I see what you mean. As Theologians are studying ‘the nature of God’, then they would already Believe that there was a God to study, wouldn’t they?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps you have missed the point I am making, which is to address your original question about knowing God through the study of theology …quote:I wonder what you think it is that makes you and millions of others accept the existence of God? More and more now is known about how humans experience feelings etc; experiences believed as being connected with God are natural too.
…and not to talk about world factual history. (I wonder why you don't doubt the existence of Shakespeare, or accept that his writing has made an impact on the world, but that is beside the point.)
The point I was making is that one doesn't actually get to know a person from all that others have said, but one does come to find out a lot about them from what others have experienced of them, and from what they have said themselves.quote:Thank you.
In the same way, we can find out a lot more about God by studying theology, but to know God would only happen if we spent time with God.
quote:I like discussing with you too. It's just that sometimes you have the habit sometimes of asking us a question, challenging us to answer it, and when we do you move the discussion in another direction. It is this that we call moving the goalposts sometimes. I used to find it rather irritating, but I can stand it better now.
SusanDoris: I'm not actually looking for anything. I just love being involved in conversation, discussion, communication with interesting people, whether I agree with them or not.
quote:Hey, maybe you can convince them to become atheists!
SusanDoris: It is far, far more interesting than listening to some double-glazing people who were here this afternoon to give me a quote!:
quote:Of course. Yes, churches are founded based on things that cannot be proven empirically. I agree with you.
SusanDoris: but one has to bear in mind that churches and religions exist because of a belief in a God. This belief requires 100% subjective, faith.
quote:It isn't up to me to determine what theologians should do, I guess that they're perfectly capable to decide that for themselves.
SusanDoris: However, don't you think they should spend some of their time defining, substantiating, providing one piece of information which would remove any doubt that god is not in fact a human idea?
quote:I agree that they are evading the question a bit in their academic work. Their position seems to be: we cannot prove God's existence objectively, so let's concentrate on things we can analyse objectively. This seems a sensible position to me.
SusanDoris: Otherwise it seems to me that they are evading the question and are relying entirely on what people have thought and said.
quote:So far as God being grasped by the human mind is concerned, consider whether a dog can grasp in its doggy mind the intricacies of abstract thought of which human beings are capable. And the way those are applied in all the things human beings produce or make. You would I guess have no difficulty in recognising that it is unfair to expect the dog to grasp all of that. But it might be dimly aware of something which we would describe as gratitude and affection for the care its Master provides. In its own doggy way, it seems to need to belong.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Can you elaborate on why you think this is so?
On the specific point, I think Jerry Coyne seems to have a very limited understanding of what serious theologians actually do. But perhaps more seriously, I agree the observation that in general serious theologians would know that there is a common belief at work in the minds of believers. It is that God cannot be grasped by the human mind.quote:Except, maybe, the assumption that God is?!
The other point is that IME all serious theologians I read these days employ critical thinking in their work. They do not necessarily accept anything purely "on authority".
quote: I will try to improve!!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I used to find it rather irritating, but I can stand it better now.
quote:Agree, and of course apologies always for any incorrect grammar.
I'm having a bit of difficulty parsing your sentence because it contains a triple negation, but I think what you're suggesting is that theologians should try to come up with empirical evidence that God is real (and not just a human idea).
quote:To some extent, maybe, but you do insist on producing a fait accompli, i.e. "well! science cannot prove God's existence, so obviously there is no god, so why you are still a believer" (although you are more polite than that
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you think I do not'engage' beliefs, could I not say that the opposite applies to believers here?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) and we go "well actually, faith doesn't work like that and lots of religious people do actually accept the theory of evolution etc." and thus we go merrily around in circles. I note that nobody here has tried to de-convert you from atheism (as far as I know).quote:I completely understand about messageboards being life-savers.
I simply enjoy the exchange of posts with interesting people. Seriously, message boards (the four I go to) have been something of a life-saver, over the past ten years I don't know what I'd be doing otherwise.
I stress that is not self-pity - I never waste time on that -it's just the facts!
quote:No theologian could provide 100% proof that God exists. It's impossible to do that. And that's not really their job.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Again, no argument. However, don't you think they should spend some of their time defining, substantiating, providing one piece of information which would remove any doubt that god is not in fact a human idea? Otherwise it seems to me that they are evading the question and are relying entirely on what people have thought and said.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:But why is God 'the elephant in the room'?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
It seems to me that the God at the base of all theological studies about churches etc is the elephant in the room!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
You mean because no theologian can actually prove God's existence beyond any reasonable doubt?
quote:Very interesting post - thank you. I've read it several times.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Rowan Williams, in the introduction to a book of collected papers, divides theological arguments into three types:
Celebrative: this is about showing that Christian theology is a coherent body of doctrine that at least plausibly fits with human experience.
Communicative: this is about putting Christian theology into dialogue with other religious traditions or non-religious modes of thought and seeing how Christianity can incorporate those insights.
Critical: this is about asking whether the theological body is still in continuity with the original gospel, whether the whole edifice is still grounded in experience, whether or not the rites and language is still meaningful.I w
.
quote:I like that expression. We don't really have it in Dutch.
SusanDoris: It seems to me that the God at the base of all theological studies about churches etc is the elephant in the room!
quote:Exactly. I've seen that exact scene played out in many a seminary classroom-- but always w/o the awkward ending. I've had it happen in my own classroom. Often it leads to a very fruitful and interesting discussion not unlike the one we're having here-- on the nature of knowledge, of truth, sources of authority, and how we apprehend these things.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I like that expression. We don't really have it in Dutch.
SusanDoris: It seems to me that the God at the base of all theological studies about churches etc is the elephant in the room!
The image this expression brings to my mind is this. There are a lot of theologians together. In a university classroom or perhaps in an academic congress. They are going on about intertextual relationships, cultural markers, neo-Platonic revisionism of church policies ... When suddenly someone stands up and shouts: "But does God actually exist?!"
A sudden silence, where only the nervous shuffling of some papers can be heard. The lecturing professor starts to blush, while the student on the first row suddenly takes a big interest in studying his feet. People look around from one side to another, and after a while some people can't stop themselves from giggling softly.
This goes on until someone in the room takes the initiative and asks: "what about liturgical practices in early-medieval Armenia?" The tension is broken, there is a sigh of relief and everyone feels that they can go on as usual again.
I like this; it's funny. I can see this being played out in a tv sketch. But I'm afraid that it doesn't really happen like this.
The existence (or not) of God isn't a taboo subject when theologians are talking between each other. I imagine that they do it quite often. It is just that when they're doing academic work, they can't really say something objective about it. So most of the time, they prefer to leave the question open.
quote:Just a small quibble here, Science does not attempt to prove negatives; it attempts to falsify Theories, which either strengthens or improves them.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
…but you do insist on producing a fait accompli, i.e. "well! science cannot prove God's existence, so obviously there is no god, …
quote:They could do it with ease if there was just one fact!
…so why you are still a believer" (although you are more polite than that
quote:One of the advantages of being an atheist is that we know that when we die, there is no more and therefore spend no time at all thinking about it!
I'm a Christian, I believe God exists because a) I believe the Bible and b) I believe I have a personal relationship with Jesus, through prayer among other things. There's more I could say, but that'll do for now. These things I accept by faith. The gospel is simple stuff, really: perhaps that's offensive to some intellectuals. (Not that I'm anti-intellectual, but Jesus did say we must be like little children in order to enter the Kingdom)
quote:I suppose it would have been more accurate to say the complete lack of God is the elephant-sized space in the room which believers will not accept is a vacuum. Hmmm, I’m not sure that sentence works!
quote:But why is God 'the elephant in the room'?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
It seems to me that the God at the base of all theological studies about churches etc is the elephant in the room!
quote:Love that image - super post, thank you!! And yes of course it is not only very important, but essential, to study anything that has been a part of the history of the human species.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
May I ask you a question? Suppose for a moment that you are right. God doesn't exist, He is just a human construct. In this case, would it still be important to study church history, or early Jewish texts? Why? Or why not?
quote:Sorry to come late to this, but when Karl Barth, towards the end of his life, was asked if he was approaching complete knowledge of God and faith he replied to the effect of "when you dip your toe in the ocean and remove it, the impact on the ocean's contents of the residue that leaves with your toe is the equivalent of that which I know of God." (He probably added a four page excursus
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:There are plenty of senior theologicians on the Ship, so I hope they'll be able to answer you, but my guess is that when they answer this question honestly they'll say: "not a lot".
SusanDoris:What do today's senior Theologians know about God.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
)quote:Aah, that's your phantasy. Nice. If you're ever going to do this for real, please invite me. I'd love to see this
SusanDoris: A fascinating situation would be a roomful of Bishops and me at the front plaing out the scene as excellently described by Le Roc in his post!
quote:So we both agree that studying things like church history, ancient texts ... is relevant, whether there is a God or not. Actually, I think this is a big part of what theologians are doing.
SusanDoris: And yes of course it is not only very important, but essential, to study anything that has been a part of the history of the human species.
quote:Shouldn't be too hard to arrange because, as noted before, this happens all the time. Susan might be disappointed, though, when no one acts shocked or nervous or changes the subject, but just carries on answering her very normal question that, again, is asked in these settings all the time.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Aah, that's your phantasy. Nice. If you're ever going to do this for real, please invite me. I'd love to see this
SusanDoris: A fascinating situation would be a roomful of Bishops and me at the front plaing out the scene as excellently described by Le Roc in his post!
quote:Hi SusanDoris - I'm late to the party so please forgive me for just jumping in. I'm really enjoying your intelligent responses here & in other threads (even though, as a theist, I don't always agree with you!).
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One of the advantages of being an atheist is that we know that when we die, there is no more and therefore spend no time at all thinking about it!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Here's a thought Susan Doris.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Jengie jon,Leo and cliffdweller
Thank you for your posts. I certainly feel I know more a bout theology now anyway.
I think you are right, cliffdweller, that it is probably a good idea to move on!
quote:That will be up to the younger generations of scientists, atheists and humanists to tackle!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If you're ever going to do this for real, please invite me. I'd love to see this
quote:One day, maybe, they will admit that the God, whose 'nature' they are supposed to have been studying is a myth. I'll be long gone by then.
So we both agree that studying things like church history, ancient texts ... is relevant, whether there is a God or not. Actually, I think this is a big part of what theologians are doing.
quote:The questioner would not usually be an atheist though, I think!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Shouldn't be too hard to arrange because, as noted before, this happens all the time. Susan might be disappointed, though, when no one acts shocked or nervous or changes the subject, but just carries on answering her very normal question that, again, is asked in these settings all the time.
quote:What puzzles me is why you should care what they believe? Have you bought into some kind of Dawkinsite understanding that religious belief is always unhealthy, sometimes dangerous, and therefore it's in everyone's interests to be cured of it?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One day, maybe, they will admit that the God, whose 'nature' they are supposed to have been studying is a myth. I'll be long gone by then.
quote:The joy of recognising how little we know is the opportunity to seek further, or different, understanding. That's theology for me, a continuing opportunity to seek more understanding of the nature of God and of our relationship with God.
Originally posted by Forthview:
The more one knows, the more one knows how little one knows.
quote:Thank you for saying; the more who join in the merrier anyway! And the more interesting SoF is.
Originally posted by windsofchange:
quote:Hi SusanDoris - I'm late to the party so please forgive me for just jumping in. I'm really enjoying your intelligent responses here & in other threads (even though, as a theist, I don't always agree with you!).
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One of the advantages of being an atheist is that we know that when we die, there is no more and therefore spend no time at all thinking about it!
quote:When I was young, I used to think I would quite like to come back as an opera singer, with lovely slim knees and advanced skills in swimming!
However, I did want to point out that just being an atheist does not mean you know for sure what will happen (if anything) when you die. I think that is more of a materialist, rather than atheist, worldview.
For exmaple, a lot of Buddhists are atheists in the sense that they don't believe in a God or gods, but they do believe in the possibility of reincarnation. [
The less time I have left, the more realistic I am. quote:But the thought of reincarnating time after time is definitely not cool!!
So - just being an atheist - which is, after all, simply a lack of belief in the existence of deities - doesn't necessarily mean a lack of belief in some sort of afterlife, right?
Thanks for letting me intrude - carry on!
quote:What is the benefit of having faith entirely without evidence (the concrete, objective sort) in any god?
Originally posted by Jamat:
Here's a thought Susan Doris.
Hebrews 11:1,2 says faith is both substance and evidence yet you can't see it. So what sort of substance can't one physically sense? Obviously what is posited is a realm beyond the material yet we experience it from within the material if we do so at all.
quote:Thank you . Yes, I am a collection of molecules , cells, genes, chemicals etc, which have, over many millions of years, via all our ancestral species, evolved into our human species, which is the only one able to speak, make up sounds and groups of sounds which name objects, both concrete and abstract, including of course ideas. I do not attempt to define spirit or soul, since they are words to enable us to talk about different aspects of who and what we are. None can be separated out. In my opinion, some music is sublime and can move me to tears, I can imagine an infinite number of things both existing and non-existing, and if all those aspects of me are not my 'spirit', my 'soul', then can you tell me what they are, and how the spirit and soul of atheist are different.
For you, though, that door is shut by your own admission. However, just because you may say you are only a collection of molecules, does not make it true if in fact part of you is 'spirit.
quote:An atheist could respond by saying that theists are in denial because they will not acknowledge that the God they believe in has only an infinitesimally, vanishingly small possibility of existing.
' Lots of people are in denial about all sorts of stuff but all that means is a refusal to acknowledge a fact everyone else can see. Eg "I can stop drinking whenever I like". Denial is an avoidance mechanism. It stunts personal growth.
quote:Err ... once again I wonder why I'm having a discussion with you if you simply ignore everything we've been saying so far
SusanDoris: One day, maybe, they will admit that the God, whose 'nature' they are supposed to have been studying is a myth. I'll be long gone by then.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:Depends on the setting. I teach in a faith-based university that has no faith requirement for students, so we do get a surprising number of non-Christians (including atheists) attending, for a variety of reasons. So in my setting it is often (tho not always) atheists who would raise the question. In a seminary obviously the students are Christians, but at the point they are raising these sorts of questions their faith may be being rocked in one way or the other, so they could probably better be described as agnostic.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:The questioner would not usually be an atheist though, I think!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Shouldn't be too hard to arrange because, as noted before, this happens all the time. Susan might be disappointed, though, when no one acts shocked or nervous or changes the subject, but just carries on answering her very normal question that, again, is asked in these settings all the time.
quote:Firstly: I respect every person’s right to believe what they choose to, and which is true for them, and will strongly and robustly defend their right to do so, and the status quo, until, that is, a stronger Godless, ethical and moral etc, background comes to be accepted by a majority. Obviously, this is not going to happen any time soon. Religious beliefs in this country are as they are (although adherence to God beliefs is lessening, however slowly it is happening), with the CofE is a solid background to life and it’s the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ sort of thing. I care about it very much – see later here.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:What puzzles me is why you should care what they believe?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One day, maybe, they will admit that the God, whose 'nature' they are supposed to have been studying is a myth. I'll be long gone by then.
quote:Most decidedly not! I’m far too level-headed for that.
Have you bought into some kind of Dawkinsite understanding that religious belief is always unhealthy, sometimes dangerous, and therefore it's in everyone's interests to be cured of it?
quote:Well, no, but the very sub-heading of this forum, ‘the magazine of Christian unrest’, would seem to indicate that those here enjoy discussions for their (the discussions’) own sake, and would be on exclusively believers’ sites if they were looking only for reinforcement of their own beliefs.
Personally, I don't think it's my business to "set other people straight" i.e. come around to my way of thinking.
quote:I’m with the Quakers on this one, although I suppose that they think that God supplies the ‘inner light’. Whatever name we give it, it is a human concept,. I change my life, take responsibility for my mistakes and do my best to correct them, but I rely on other humans’ advice, whether it is from my contemporaries, or from the accumulated moral wisdom of humanity.
In the terms of my religion, conviction, repentance, change of mind are matters of internal choice, guided and helped by the Holy Spirit. Or if you prefer it, the Quaker term is the "inner light". That's respectful of personal autonomy.
quote:Agreed; no argument there.
Of course there is straightforward stupidity, often best illustrated by pointing to contradictions. And of course some religious people are stupid. And of course there is human malevolence. Some religious people illustrate that as well. But those are common human failings; no group of people, none of us can claim to be completely free from those ills.
quote:The thing that I feel very, very strongly about is the way that adults continue to teach children that their faith is right and, sometimes, that others are not, that ‘God is love’, that God does/wants/thinks X, Y and Z, without a shred of testable (plus all the other words that Science uses) evidence to support it. This continues (with I stress most strongly in nearly every case the very best of caring and loving intentions – and where I was involved similarly when young) in spite of the fact that there is now such a huge, and rapidly increasing , infinity of knowledge and facts about so much in the universe, faiths are here to stay, I suppose.
Which brings me back to the start. Are you really bothered by, in your terms, our stubborn adherence to what you see as a myth? If so, why?
quote:Of course not. I can only speak for myself, and know that while I still believed, although more and more faintly, that there was some force/power, there was a microscopic mistake somewhere in me, and that when I erased that minuscule belief, I felt whole, complete.
You can't possibly know for sure if any of us would be better off without this adherence.
quote:Honestly, this is not the way you come across, other than in the most literal sense (i.e. I'm sure you would not support some sort of government ban on all religious expression). "Respect" is not really what I hear from you. That could be just my own defensiveness of course.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Firstly: I respect every person’s right to believe what they choose to, and which is true for them, and will strongly and robustly defend their right to do so...
quote:oh, you got that one right!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Well, no, but the very sub-heading of this forum, ‘the magazine of Christian unrest’, would seem to indicate that those here enjoy discussions for their (the discussions’) own sake
quote:I don't know, but neither can I suggest a hypothesis for such an investigation.
Originally posted by agingjb:
How do scientists go about showing that we are not living in a simulation?
quote:I think that's a bit unfair! Please specify what I have ignored. Whatever it was, it was not intentional. In my defence, may I mention that I'm listening to posts, not reading them.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Err ... once again I wonder why I'm having a discussion with you if you simply ignore everything we've been saying so far
SusanDoris: One day, maybe, they will admit that the God, whose 'nature' they are supposed to have been studying is a myth. I'll be long gone by then.
quote:I would be really interested to hear one aspect of this which is independent of human input.
We've already agreed that theologians study a lot of things that are acutally quite useful, regardless of whether God exists or not. You said yourself: "And yes of course it is not only very important, but essential, to study anything that has been a part of the history of the human species." And now we're back at "Theologians study the nature of God?"
quote:Are you saing then that theologians do not study the nature of God? How does your dictionary define theology??
Once again, you claim to love Science. Are you prepared to challenge your assumption "theologians study the nature of God" or are you just going to repeat this dogma like a broken record, no matter what people say?
quote:I can assure you, I'd be there with me little placard, marching up and down, if the Government attempted to deny the right to believe in gods!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Honestly, this is not the way you come across, other than in the most literal sense (i.e. I'm sure you would not support some sort of government ban on all religious expression). "Respect" is not really what I hear from you. That could be just my own defensiveness of course.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Firstly: I respect every person’s right to believe what they choose to, and which is true for them, and will strongly and robustly defend their right to do so...
quote:Phew! Thank you.
quote:oh, you got that one right!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Well, no, but the very sub-heading of this forum, ‘the magazine of Christian unrest’, would seem to indicate that those here enjoy discussions for their (the discussions’) own sake
quote:This would be another one of those examples where you seem to have missed entirely what I was saying.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:I can assure you, I'd be there with me little placard, marching up and down, if the Government attempted to deny the right to believe in gods!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Honestly, this is not the way you come across, other than in the most literal sense (i.e. I'm sure you would not support some sort of government ban on all religious expression). "Respect" is not really what I hear from you. That could be just my own defensiveness of course.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Firstly: I respect every person’s right to believe what they choose to, and which is true for them, and will strongly and robustly defend their right to do so...
quote:In which case I find it equivalently hard to see how science, as such, can rule out the presence of a fully omnipotent supervisor.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:I don't know, but neither can I suggest a hypothesis for such an investigation.
Originally posted by agingjb:
How do scientists go about showing that we are not living in a simulation?
[
quote:Well, I'm afraid I'll have to give up at this point, unless you can explain why.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:This would be another one of those examples where you seem to have missed entirely what I was saying.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:I can assure you, I'd be there with me little placard, marching up and down, if the Government attempted to deny the right to believe in gods!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Honestly, this is not the way you come across, other than in the most literal sense (i.e. I'm sure you would not support some sort of government ban on all religious expression). "Respect" is not really what I hear from you. That could be just my own defensiveness of course.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Firstly: I respect every person’s right to believe what they choose to, and which is true for them, and will strongly and robustly defend their right to do so...
quote:No it isn't, and with all due respect, I'm going to ask you to take that back.
SusanDoris: I think that's a bit unfair!
quote:So far,the discussion on this thread has been like this (I'm simplifying things a bit here):
SusanDoris: Please specify what I have ignored.
quote:You're changing the subject. Again.
SusanDoris: I would be really interested to hear one aspect of this which is independent of human input.
quote:Hallelujah!! Yes! That's exactly what I've been saying all along on this thread.
SusanDoris: Are you saing then that theologians do not study the nature of God?
quote:Now there's a good starting question. If you're interested in going beyond your assumptions and finding out what theology actually is, there are plenty of sources for that. There many theology faculties that put their curriculum on the internet, you can have access to various theological journals ...
SusanDoris: How does your dictionary define theology??
quote:You said you were showing respect for our religious beliefs. I said you weren't coming across "respectful" (at least to me), even though I'm sure you would defend our right to religious freedom. You responded by confirming that you would defend our right to religious freedom. That seemed to be-- deliberately or otherwise-- missing the point, which is that you're not coming across (at least to me) as respectful.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Well, I'm afraid I'll have to give up at this point, unless you can explain why.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:This would be another one of those examples where you seem to have missed entirely what I was saying.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:I can assure you, I'd be there with me little placard, marching up and down, if the Government attempted to deny the right to believe in gods!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Honestly, this is not the way you come across, other than in the most literal sense (i.e. I'm sure you would not support some sort of government ban on all religious expression). "Respect" is not really what I hear from you. That could be just my own defensiveness of course.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Firstly: I respect every person’s right to believe what they choose to, and which is true for them, and will strongly and robustly defend their right to do so...
quote:But it doesn't, does it? It always allows for any Theory that is put forward to be challenged, tested, falsified, so that if it stands up to that, it is likely to be more reliable. Also, can you cite where Science has 'ruled out' such a 'supervisor'?
Originally posted by agingjb:
In which case I find it equivalently hard to see how science, as such, can rule out the presence of a fully omnipotent supervisor.
quote:Of course not. There are, of course, plenty of scientists who are also theists of one sort or another. But then, our argument here is not with "science"-- our argument is with Susan.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:But it doesn't, does it? It always allows for any Theory that is put forward to be challenged, tested, falsified, so that if it stands up to that, it is likely to be more reliable. Also, can you cite where Science has 'ruled out' such a 'supervisor'?
Originally posted by agingjb:
In which case I find it equivalently hard to see how science, as such, can rule out the presence of a fully omnipotent supervisor.
quote:That's not the way you're coming across. Or, again, at least to me.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I personally rule it out, but I do not put forward any hypotheses, let alone a theory to be challenged. I am always aware that what I think can be overturned in the blink of an eye.
quote:Thank you for clarifying that. There is no doubt that I most certainly respect people here. It is quite tricky to say I respect the beliefs themselves, because the latter do not exist without the people who have them. Hmmm, I'll have to have another think about that.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You said you were showing respect for our religious beliefs. I said you weren't coming across "respectful" (at least to me), even though I'm sure you would defend our right to religious freedom. You responded by confirming that you would defend our right to religious freedom. That seemed to be-- deliberately or otherwise-- missing the point, which is that you're not coming across (at least to me) as respectful.
But shutting down computer now.
quote:It certainly does seem as if you single-mindedly repeat the mantra about there being no proof of God's existence and of your certainty that those who believe in God are imagining it all, whatever topic is being discussed. It almost seems as if you cannot hear the answers to your op given time and time again in this thread, as if that was not what you wanted to discuss.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The thing that I feel very, very strongly about is the way that adults continue to teach children that their faith is right and, sometimes, that others are not, that ‘God is love’, that God does/wants/thinks X, Y and Z, without a shred of testable (plus all the other words that Science uses) evidence to support it. This continues (with I stress most strongly in nearly every case the very best of caring and loving intentions – and where I was involved similarly when young) in spite of the fact that there is now such a huge, and rapidly increasing , infinity of knowledge and facts about so much in the universe, faiths are here to stay, I suppose.
Okay, there should be an increase in confidence in people acknowledging that of course we don’t know huge amounts, but the need for a God-did-it should gradually diminish, shouldn’t it?
quote:You have missed the point. If there is a supervisor outside of the physical realm, it is not possible to study it scientifically. All science can study is what's inside the simulation. Anything outside the simulation is not within the realm of science. What you, Susan Doris, have is an unshakeable, unprovable axiomatic faith that there is nothing outside the realm of science. Which is either irrational, or at the very least transrational. It cannot be proven, it cannot be studied scientifically with an eye toward affirming or denying it using evidence. It's not scientific.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:But it doesn't, does it? It always allows for any Theory that is put forward to be challenged, tested, falsified, so that if it stands up to that, it is likely to be more reliable. Also, can you cite where Science has 'ruled out' such a 'supervisor'?
Originally posted by agingjb:
In which case I find it equivalently hard to see how science, as such, can rule out the presence of a fully omnipotent supervisor.
quote:That sounds less like theology than anthropology.
Originally posted by Evensong:
To know a lot about the human experience of God and be able to translate that knowledge for today is indeed the call of the theologian and a top theologian would be the same as any other top anything in their field.
quote:This seems to lie behind every thread you start. "Why do you believe in God? Let me shoot it down."
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder what you think it is that makes you and millions of others accept the existence of God? More and more now is known about how humans experience feelings etc; experiences believed as being connected with God are natural too.
quote:You assert this repeatedly, but have not to my knowledge, despite many requests to do so, proven it.
but one has to bear in mind that churches and religions exist because of a belief in a God. This belief requires 100% subjective, faith.
quote:That's a philosophical or metaphysical question, not a scientific one. They wouldn't go about any such thing. Science is the craft of describing what the simulation looks like from the inside, not deciding whether there's anything outside of it.
Originally posted by agingjb:
How do scientists go about showing that we are not living in a simulation?
quote:Why would anyone answer this question? Whatever we say, you will reply, "Yes but you can have those benefits without believing in a sky-fairy." Who needs that kind of abuse?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
What is the benefit of having faith entirely without evidence (the concrete, objective sort) in any god?
quote:If it's from defensiveness it's not from yours alone. I feel like I'm in a petri dish, being poked and prodded by someone standing above the petri dish looking down, who keeps saying "thank you for your stimulus-reponse" every time I'm poked or chemically prodded.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
"Respect" is not really what I hear from you. That could be just my own defensiveness of course.
quote:I'm not at all sure what you mean by this? What beliefs are expressed in the language of certainty? If I say "I believe God exists" is that the language of certainty?
Originally posted by agingjb:
And are beliefs, either sort, opinions expressed using the language of certainty, or certainties expressed in the form of opinions?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Including most atheists, including Susan Doris. What point exactly are you making?
Originally posted by agingjb:
Not everyone is as careful as Mousethief to avoid expressing their opinions as knowledge.
quote:Ah. On that we are in concord. It is not a scientific question, and science can only answer scientific questions.
Originally posted by agingjb:
Sorry. I obviously failed to say what I meant, if anything.
My original point was that scientific enquiry, far from establishing the non-existence of God, cannot even address the rather simpler question of whether we are living in a non-divine simulation.
quote:Call it a mantra if you like, although I would not!, but can you pinpoint any piece of information which I have missed and which should have changed my view?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It certainly does seem as if you single-mindedly repeat the mantra about there being no proof of God's existence and of your certainty that those who believe in God are imagining it all, whatever topic is being discussed.
quote:Again, which answer has said what theologians know about God (I realise that I could have caused some slight confusion because I shortened the topic title, but the OP made the question clear I think.)
It almost seems as if you cannot hear the answers to your op given time and time again in this thread, as if that was not what you wanted to discuss.
quote:Where did I say that? All such changes have to come about via a gradual process in a free country.
You say that you respect those who do believe, and yet you want to refuse them ...
quote:True! However, with hindsight I would like to have been an atheist at an earlier age.
...the right to teach the truth as they see it to their children, that God is real, that God is love and our faith is right, as if it is harmful to children - but you say yourself that you were taught to believe, and now you don't, so it didn't harm you.
quote:Okay, good point, but all the things that theologians actually study are an integral part of history.
Perhaps you will agree that it would be a good thing for more young people to study theology.
quote:I can but hope!
After all, if you are convinced that there is no substance to it, perhaps they will be convinced too.
quote:Finally, we're making some progress. Now for the £1,000,000 question: since you agree now that theologians occupy themselves with things that can and should be studied rationally, do you also agree that saying "a top Theologian would be one who knows what all other top Theologians had said about God" is at the very least testimony of the speaker's ignorance of what theologians are actually doing?
SusanDoris: Reading through the rest of his post, it would seem that an important point is the definition of theologian. If they do not study the ‘nature of God’ but do study everything about religious beliefs, including the ‘concepts of God’, which of course are human concepts. I agree that these can be studied whether God exists or not, and don’t think I have stated otherwise.
quote:I can pinpoint plenty, but nothing will change a mind that is closed, or help a person to hear and understand who is determined not to hear and understand.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Call it a mantra if you like, although I would not!, but can you pinpoint any piece of information which I have missed and which should have changed my view?
quote:The op asks what theologians know about God. Time and again people have responded by letting you know what theology is - a vital point if asking what a theologian knows - but that doesn't seem to be what you want to talk about.
Again, which answer has said what theologians know about God (I realise that I could have caused some slight confusion because I shortened the topic title, but the OP made the question clear I think.)
quote:Wow. That's rather cold. You are told directly by at least two shipmates that your posts come across as disrespectful to believers, along with a detailed explanation of why. And your response is to tell us to read your website?!? Why in the world would I want to do that? At a certain point I gotta learn from experience and stop engaging someone who clearly has so little respect or desire for mutual dialogue.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As far as respect is concerned and how my words here portray me, a look at my web site might give a better picture! It does, however, need some updating.
quote:Jerry Coyne's slightly facetious remark was straightforward enough. From what I have heard,he's a professor of biology. However many top theologians there are today, if one of them knows all that the others do, then he'd have to be classified as top banana, or whatever the current phrase is! Whatever this top theologian considers to be an accurate job description does not alter the fact that he would not be able to provide one single, known fact about the Christian God, would he?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Finally, we're making some progress. Now for the £1,000,000 question: since you agree now that theologians occupy themselves with things that can and should be studied rationally, do you also agree that saying "a top Theologian would be one who knows what all other top Theologians had said about God" is at the very least testimony of the speaker's ignorance of what theologians are actually doing?
)
quote:But choose not to do so! To clarify, I will add that such a 'piece of information' would have to be a fact about God, not about theology, about which I have learnt a lot.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:I can pinpoint plenty, ...
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Call it a mantra if you like, although I would not!, but can you pinpoint any piece of information which I have missed and which should have changed my view?
quote:I am pleased to hear that you have learned about theology, and therefore learned what people study that is factual and connected with God........ but you don't want any of those facts.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
But choose not to do so! To clarify, I will add that such a 'piece of information' would have to be a fact about God, not about theology, about which I have learnt a lot.
quote:I am always interested in learning things I didn't know before. However, I have not learnt one single fact about God in this thread. Please correct me if I'm wrong there.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:I am pleased to hear that you have learned about theology, and therefore learned what people study that is factual and connected with God........ but you don't want any of those
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
But choose not to do so! To clarify, I will add that such a 'piece of information' would have to be a fact about God, not about theology, about which I have learnt a lot.
facts.
quote:There are none to which it is closed, whether I like them or not; but I have never seen or heard a fact about God. Have you?
Please give me some examples, of the kind of 'facts' that your mind is open to.
quote:That's not an answer. I'm sorry, but you started this topic, challenging us to give an answer to what Jerry Coyne said. Now that we ask you a question about his statement, you evade answering it?
SusanDoris: Jerry Coyne's slightly facetious remark was straightforward enough.
quote:This is just wriggling. I haven't watched the video, but I'm sure that Mr. Coyne's intent wasn't to heap praise on "the top theologian" (whoever that may be).
SusanDoris: However many top theologians there are today, if one of them knows all that the others do, then he'd have to be classified as top banana, or whatever the current phrase is!
quote:Here we go again
SusanDoris: Whatever this top theologian considers to be an accurate job description does not alter the fact that he would not be able to provide one single, known fact about the Christian God, would he?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:You cannot learn anything, whatever the topic, if you have a closed mind. If someone tells you that it is a fact that ripples appear on a pond, but they cannot describe what makes the ripples as they don't see it with the naked eye, you may either accept or deny a) that the ripples are a fact or b) that the cause of the ripples is a fact. With an open mind, you may accept the possibility that either or both facts are true. With a closed mind, no one will convince you of either as you have already decided it is all nonsense and you have no intention of seeking out the truth for yourself, even if billions of other people have seen the ripples and drawn close to the cause too.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I am always interested in learning things I didn't know before. However, I have not learnt one single fact about God in this thread. Please correct me if I'm wrong there.
quote:
Please give me some examples, of the kind of 'facts' that your mind is open to.
quote:I repeat, please give me some examples of the kind of facts that you would accept as facts about God, so that I can know what you are looking for.
There are none to which it is closed, whether I like them or not; but I have never seen or heard a fact about God. Have you?
Assertions and claims abound of course.
quote:Please re-read the OP – the central question was what do theologians know about God.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Once again, I wonder why I and other people had this whole discussion with you, trying to explain to you what theologians do, when all you do is come again with a stupid "theologians can't provide a single fact about God."
quote:Please pick out one fact about God which you think was listed and which you think I've missed!
Originally posted by mousethief:
Atheist: I'm being really earnest here, what do theologians KNOW about God?
Theist: <lists things>
quote:But no matter what he says, will you respond, "No, you don't know that because you can't prove it with scientific facts" or some such? It's a fool's errand to answer such a question. You have said you're not interested. You said, "but not to stuff which requires 100% faith only" by which you seem to mean anything that's not scientifically demonstrable.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
In my previous post I said I had never heard a fact about God and then said, ‘Have you?’ I note you have not answered that question. You ask me to give you an example of a fact I would be prepared to accept, but note that you do not offer even an example of one that you know – not just guess about, or that you have seen or heard from the words of others, or that you think you have experienced - about God
quote:I'm not sure if the "I can't prove my wife loves me" comment counts as a logical fallacy, but I do not think you will deny that biologists etc understand a lot about the reactions and responses which occur in the brain when the emotions of love are tested. Complete understanding of varying feelings of love will almost certainly never have a detailed analysis but even now it is not a total mystery, is it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I cannot scientifically demonstrate that my wife loves me. The "facts" that I base my beliefs on are quite subjective. Therefore, by atheist logic (and I use the term loosely), I have no reason to think it at all, and should not. From which it follows that nobody should think anybody loves them, as it's not demonstrable. From which it follows that there is no such thing as love. But that is a patent absurdity. Therefore one of the premises is wrong. I think it's "only those things that can be scientifically demonstrated are knowable."
quote:Okay! Thank you for saying ... but in that case, I would be most grateful if you would please explain it to me! And I assure you I am not being sarcastic; I profoundly dislike sarcasm and never use it.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Wow. No one misses the point quite as spectacularly as you, Susan.
quote:I have read the OP, and in fact I answered this exact question here. On this thread, a number of theologians have given more or less the same answer. Once again, the fact that you never seem to listen to our answers seems to be a bit of a problem here.
SusanDoris: Please re-read the OP – the central question was what do theologians know about God.
quote:To you perhaps.
SusanDoris: I now know a lot more about what theologians do, but it would seem somewhat surprising that they have no facts about God!
quote:Yes, they are well aware of this. This isn't something they are hush-hush about, or something that they deny, or that they try to brush under the table. In fact, when I started studying theology, it was one of the first things they told me.
SusanDoris: If they are well aware of this, their position might seem to be a tad controversial?
quote:You could have fooled me.
SusanDoris: I had no prior prejudices about what theologians did, by the way.
quote:I know a lot of facts about God. I know that God exists. I know that God cannot be seen with the naked eye, and yet God's presence can be experienced, although not on demand or in any way that I may contrive. I know that God's love causes such wonderful ripples in the waters of our spiritual lives that a positive and unmistakable impact is made on the world. I know that Jesus gave us a physical example if what happens spiritually, and that all that happens physically tells us about what happens spiritually.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Thank you for your reply. I entirely agree with you that one cannot learn anything if one has a closed mind, which is why mine will remain open to new stuff, both fact and fiction, for as long as I live, but not to stuff which requires 100% faith only and for which no fact is available apparently!
In my previous post I said I had never heard a fact about God and then said, ‘Have you?’ I note you have not answered that question. You ask me to give you an example of a fact I would be prepared to accept, but note that you do not offer even an example of one that you know – not just guess about, or that you have seen or heard from the words of others, or that you think you have experienced - about God
I don't think the ripples on a pond analogy works because there is no doubt of the fact that ripples occur on water. Ripples on water do not form the basis of any serious controversy, or any religious faith, whether a person has seen, or believed them to be real, or not.
quote:I personally have never, even as a child imagined God as anything but a voice. I had no reason then to think any study of God was something to be considered.
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
@SusanDoris, you seem to be committing the category error of seeing God as a person or object which can be studied with other items within the universe - so that an explanation is either God or the world of science as though they are in competition.
quote:But, similarly, scientists have identified distinctive patterns of brain activity that are associated with transcendent religious experience. These religious experiences might even have some evolutionary advantage, especially given how ubiquitous they are across all cultures, places and religions.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:I'm not sure if the "I can't prove my wife loves me" comment counts as a logical fallacy, but I do not think you will deny that biologists etc understand a lot about the reactions and responses which occur in the brain when the emotions of love are tested. Complete understanding of varying feelings of love will almost certainly never have a detailed analysis but even now it is not a total mystery, is it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I cannot scientifically demonstrate that my wife loves me. The "facts" that I base my beliefs on are quite subjective. Therefore, by atheist logic (and I use the term loosely), I have no reason to think it at all, and should not. From which it follows that nobody should think anybody loves them, as it's not demonstrable. From which it follows that there is no such thing as love. But that is a patent absurdity. Therefore one of the premises is wrong. I think it's "only those things that can be scientifically demonstrated are knowable."
I would add that since these feelings have been such an important survival factor in human evolution, even complete understanding of them would not cause them to diminish.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I personally have never, even as a child imagined God as anything but a voice. I had no reason then to think any study of God was something to be considered.
quote:
I have read, and re-read your post through several times. In my opinion the two modern philosophers you mention are already way behind the times, or should I say, the scientific times'.
The universe is as it is regardless of whether millions of people believe a God is behind it all or not.
quote:
There are plenty of people who are quite happy with a 'we don't know' answer.
quote:
The subject of consciousness not being able to be explained crops up quite a lot, but I think you will agree that, unless evidence arrives to the contrary, a living body is required for it. It is not, as some would like it to be, a totally unexplained aspect of life.
quote:You are right that I do not believe those statements which you consider to be facts!
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I know a lot of facts about God. I know that God exists. I know that God cannot be seen with the naked eye, and yet God's presence can be experienced, although not on demand or in any way that I may contrive. I know that God's love causes such wonderful ripples in the waters of our spiritual lives that a positive and unmistakable impact is made on the world. I know that Jesus gave us a physical example if what happens spiritually, and that all that happens physically tells us about what happens spiritually.
I don't expect you to believe any of these facts, or even to think that they are facts, as they are not the kind of facts that you are looking for, so once again I ask you to give examples of the kind of facts that you are looking for.
It has as always, though, been interesting to read all the posts here.
quote:Excellent! Sounds as if that's a good compromise all round! And since my personal views do not change anything in the road I live in, or the town, let alone the country or the world, then I see no reason to comment every time that I understand why influential atheists must acknowledge the proviso that one day a god might be proved to exist. It's only on the four forums where I read and post that these discussions come up. That's probably quite sad!
Originally posted by agingjb:
"We don't know"?
Well, I'm happy with "I don't know", since I also don't know what other people know.
But my encounters with atheists usually yield a most certain "We know, and you have no grounds for your uncertainties."
Then again, my encounters with believers often yield the same reaction.
quote:No particular point; I read posts and do my best to respond to what is there. I cannot glance back and spot things relevant from posts, say, on a previous page.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm really not sure what your point is in pursuing this line of questioning.
quote:Thank you – as I have said, I have learnt a lot here about what theologians do. That in itself has made asking the question in the OP worth while.
As has already been noted, there are certain things that theologians study/ discuss that are objectively measurable, including:
1. Many people report religious experiences-- those reports can be objectively analyzed for similarities & differences
2. How many people in various cultures express belief in God
3. How religious beliefs vary from culture to culture
4. Common stages in faith development (Fowler, etc)
5. Whole fields of inquiry related to sacred literature-- source criticism, history of translation, etc.
So much of what theologians talk about is objective and measurable. I would agree with you, however, that the most interesting things that theologians study/discuss are not objectively measurable-- things like the existence of God or an afterlife, the meaning and purpose of life, etc. In this way they are similar to philosophers and artists, who spend their lives exploring subjective realities that aren't necessarily measurable.
quote:Ah, if only I could!
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
If you can explain consciousness, then please, explain it. There are many philosophers and neuroscientists who would benefit from your help.
quote:The point is not about scientific explorations of "love." It's about there being evidence my wife loves me. There cannot be, on your definition of evidence.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Okay! Thank you for saying ... but in that case, I would be most grateful if you would please explain it to me! And I assure you I am not being sarcastic; I profoundly dislike sarcasm and never use it.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Wow. No one misses the point quite as spectacularly as you, Susan.
quote:Apart from the fact that I do not recall having defined 'evidence' in this thread, the evidence leading to the proof of such an emotion remains 'I don't know'. As soon as an agent of any sort is posited, then an explanation of that agent is needed, isn't it?
Originally posted by mousethief:
The point is not about scientific explorations of "love." It's about there being evidence my wife loves me. There cannot be, on your definition of evidence.
quote:The thing is Susan that Mousethief's point stands. There are realities that defy sense knowledge and therefore Science.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Apart from the fact that I do not recall having defined 'evidence' in this thread, the evidence leading to the proof of such an emotion remains 'I don't know'. As soon as an agent of any sort is posited, then an explanation of that agent is needed, isn't it?
Originally posted by mousethief:
The point is not about scientific explorations of "love." It's about there being evidence my wife loves me. There cannot be, on your definition of evidence.
quote:Sorry for delay in answering this post; I went back to it several times, but couldn't decide how to do so!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Once again, the fact that you never seem to listen to our answers seems to be a bit of a problem here.
quote:/tangent
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
When I say I had no prejudices, I speak the truth, as I cannot see any point at all in speaking otherwise.
quote:At last. To you, a fact is only a fact if you can hear, touch, taste or smell something for yourself. Love, awareness of astounding beauty or tenderness etc, anything and everything of the 'heart', connected with the feelings of life, is not factual.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
You ask why I am not using the scientific method myself. First I need an observation on which to base a question, before any attempt can be made to proceed. Such an observation would be one I can make (or hear, or touch, or taste, or smell myself, not just the reported observation of someone else.
quote:Hmmm!
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:At last. To you, a fact is only a fact if you can hear, touch, taste or smell something for yourself. Love, awareness of astounding beauty or tenderness etc, anything and everything of the 'heart', connected with the feelings of life, is not factual.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
You ask why I am not using the scientific method myself. First I need an observation on which to base a question, before any attempt can be made to proceed. Such an observation would be one I can make (or hear, or touch, or taste, or smell myself, not just the reported observation of someone else.
I do hope that one day you will experience the closeness of God for yourself, and know that it is as real as an intimate lover, a fact that cannot be denied without a distortion of the truth.
Well, now, the context of that quote of my words was concerning God!, and, more specifically, the Christian God, not 'facts' in general. quote:The topic is what we know about God, and we haven't got as far as what kind of fact you are looking for, and you want to go into a discussion about evolution?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Hmmm!
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
At last. To you, a fact is only a fact if you can hear, touch, taste or smell something for yourself. Love, awareness of astounding beauty or tenderness etc, anything and everything of the 'heart', connected with the feelings of life, is not factual.
I do hope that one day you will experience the closeness of God for yourself, and know that it is as real as an intimate lover, a fact that cannot be denied without a distortion of the truth.
There is ample evidence for human emotions and behaviours. Much of the science of these feelings has been studied, tested, analysed, and, although many aspects remain unknown at present, explanations are constantly being brought forward, and there are no reasons not to conclude that they are, and always have been, an essential part of the evolutionary process.
Do you agree ... even in part?
quote:(a) You have posted on other threads in the past, so "on this thread" is irrelevant. (b) You may not have posted a definition, but it is evident from how you use the word what you mean by it.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Apart from the fact that I do not recall having defined 'evidence' in this thread,
quote:I'm not a host or anything, but may I too extend a warm welcome!
Originally posted by Anglicano:
I heard an Anglican priest define a theologian as "someone who can answer all the questions that are never asked". He said that in his thirty five years as a clergyman, only a small handful of people had ever asked him about theology. Certainly it's something we don't discuss over coffee at my church. When I put this to our Rural Dean, she said that the only people who wanted to discuss theology with her were "atheists" and she was quite happy to do that.
I am a small minority view here but have learnt a great deal from the very knowledgeable forum members here.quote:For the atheist of course, the answer is straightforward - no God; all caused by humans, who are an evolved branch of an ancestor ape species .
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Welcome, Anglicano, and I hope you enjoy your time on the Ship.
IME, the theological issue which many folks in the church in the UK do wish to discuss is the problem of pain and suffering and the seeming indifference of the God we proclaim to be good. When folks are going through the mill, or see people they love going through the mill, and see precious little by way of response to desperate prayers, these questions come to the fore.
They also come to the fore when, as at present, we see millions of people in desperate plight. Wars, plagues, famines, these still give rise to death on a massive scale.
quote:The TofE answer which points out that our species has adapted so well, and continues to thrive and avoid extinction by a huge margin, is a more satisfactory one. The range of human behaviour from the very worst to the very best can be described with a whole glossary of adjectives, with many associated with religious ideas, and that association is going to remain. I think though that, as religious beliefs lessen, the adjectives will become less connected with those religious beliefs.
I've heard it argued that in the 19th Century, the big issue was the problem of sin. Why does human weakness persist despite conversion and adherence to the Christian faith? In the 20th and now the 21st century, that has largely been superseded by the problem of pain. People of all faiths and none struggle to come to terms with pain and its consequences. That's certainly a major theological question.
quote:I’d say the question of whether they are true is the most important one and for the answer to that to be yes, one fact, one independently validated, true for all, not just true for you, with only a vanishingly small probability of notbeing true, fact is all that is needed. Harmful? Obviously not in many cases and all have a right to hold those beliefs. Beneficial? A very grey area, but increasingly my answer to that is no.
And I do see another big issue arising in the 21st Century, as illustrated by this thread. One might describe it as the problem of religious belief. Is it true? Is it harmful? Is it beneficial? These are also theological questions. Sometimes folks in the church find it hard to articulate their concerns about these questions as well; both their own and those of folks they are close to. But IME they are there.
quote:You can of course put it the other way around. Before we know whether God exists, we have to know what 'God exists' means. (If you start asking whether God exists without asking what 'God exists' means, you're likely to start trying to find an old man in the sky. Who doesn't exist, but that's not very interesting.
Originally posted by Boogie:
How can we know anything about God if there is no god?
quote:And there's the problem. Those who are not able to accept the reality of anything other than material objects will already have closed minds, and insist that any other is of human imagination and construction, while those ready to accept the reality of God from experience will be ready to seek to try to understand and know more about God, through theology.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I didn't use the word 'exists' Dafyd. I said the question needs to be 'is there a God?' Any God - is there any God who can be called 'real' in any sense? (set apart from human imagination/construction).
quote:Why should you assume they have closed minds?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:And there's the problem. Those who are not able to accept the reality of anything other than material objects will already have closed minds, and insist that any other is of human imagination and construction, while those ready to accept the reality of God from experience will be ready to seek to try to understand and know more about God, through theology.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I didn't use the word 'exists' Dafyd. I said the question needs to be 'is there a God?' Any God - is there any God who can be called 'real' in any sense? (set apart from human imagination/construction).
quote:I would, too, but I see her very rarely. But haven't you got a friendly local vicar you can ask? I find on boards like this there are lots of challenging atheists, but for better or for worse they don't seem to hang around churches asking questions.
I would be really interested to know how your Rural Dean would answer the main point of the question as to what theologians know about God, referring of course to the Christian god. [/QB]
quote:If in someone's mind a fact is defined as a material object that can be touched and seen, and nothing but facts will convince this person of a reality, everything else being of the imagination or of human construction, then that mind is surely closed.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Why should you assume they have closed minds?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
And there's the problem. Those who are not able to accept the reality of anything other than material objects will already have closed minds, and insist that any other is of human imagination and construction, while those ready to accept the reality of God from experience will be ready to seek to try to understand and know more about God, through theology.
There are plenty of other supernatural things you would not accept (plenty of strange beings in books which didn't make the final cut when the Bible was constructed) but your lack of acceptance of them doesn't indicate a closed mind - just an unbelieving mind, which is very different.
quote:And there lies an enormous minefield!
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I agree with you that once it is accepted that other than material objects can be real, then discernment is applied to make decisions as to what is real and what is of the imagination.
quote:While I assume there are contexts in which that's a relevant difference, I think my point applies to both cases.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I didn't use the word 'exists' Dafyd. I said the question needs to be 'is there a God?'
quote:It would be more than his job's worth to answer that, away from the Articles* he has to believe, wouldn't it? And in any case, if there was a fact about God, there would be no atheists!
Originally posted by Anglicano:
quote:I would, too, but I see her very rarely. But haven't you got a friendly local vicar you can ask?
I would be really interested to know how your Rural Dean would answer the main point of the question as to what theologians know about God, referring of course to the Christian god.
quote:Some wouldn't believe the existence of God is a fact even if he came and lived as a man, performed miracles, was killed in front of a crowd of people, and rose from the dead!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
And in any case, if there was a fact about God, there would be no atheists!
*I think that is the right word.
quote:that does not make them theologians. Parish priests will have studied theology as part of a much wider syllabus (as a comparison accountants study economics as part of an accountancy course). Some will continue to study and become theological specialists, but most will be too busy with pastoral care and day to day ministry to devote much time to theology, which is the
specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university, seminary, or school of divinity
quote:as defined by Wikipedia
systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious ideas,
quote:And would you - i.e. if that happened today?!
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
:]Some wouldn't believe the existence of God is a fact even if he came and lived as a man, performed miracles, was killed in front of a crowd of people, and rose from the dead!
quote:Certainly. Surely you would too, if it is only by seeing for yourself that you would ever believe.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:And would you - i.e. if that happened today?!
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
:]Some wouldn't believe the existence of God is a fact even if he came and lived as a man, performed miracles, was killed in front of a crowd of people, and rose from the dead!
quote:Just as we saw with your assumptions about theologians, it seems to me you have a very inaccurate understanding of what a pastor's job entails.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:It would be more than his job's worth to answer that, away from the Articles* he has to believe, wouldn't it? And in any case, if there was a fact about God, there would be no atheists!
Originally posted by Anglicano:
quote:I would, too, but I see her very rarely. But haven't you got a friendly local vicar you can ask?
I would be really interested to know how your Rural Dean would answer the main point of the question as to what theologians know about God, referring of course to the Christian god.
*I think that is the right word.
quote:Indeed. When it happened 2000 years ago, it began a movement that mushroomed from a very small band of followers to 1000s within the first generation. Why would we assume it would be any different if it happened today?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:Certainly. Surely you would too, if it is only by seeing for yourself that you would ever believe.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:And would you - i.e. if that happened today?!
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
:]Some wouldn't believe the existence of God is a fact even if he came and lived as a man, performed miracles, was killed in front of a crowd of people, and rose from the dead!
)[
quote:Your father sounds like a very interesting man. If he considers what God's nature is not, then does he consider what can actually be known about God? From my atheist point of view, everything that is supposed to be known could be classified as guesswork, since it is all deduced by people; deduced from theirs and others' experiences.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
As the daughter of a theologian (historical and doctrinal) who is a committed Christian, I can answer that in one respect.
Doctrinal my father does not think you can deduce what God is from reason alone, but there is some space to say what God's nature is not.
quote:That may well be partly true, but behind all the pastor’s work is, they believe, God – which is assumed, believed on faith alone.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Just as we saw with your assumptions about theologians, it seems to me you have a very inaccurate understanding of what a pastor's job entails.
quote:Quite a few reasons! The Sciences, including of course medical knowledge, investigative media, police enquiries, sceptical mobile phone owners; brilliant magicians, plenty of believers would baulk at such credulity.
Indeed. When it happened 2000 years ago, it began a movement that mushroomed from a very small band of followers to 1000s within the first generation. Why would we assume it would be any different if it happened today?
quote:Yes, I know, you've said that like a 1000 times so far and no one here has disputed it. However, that point has nothing to do with you original comment that I was responding to nor to my response. Yes, again-- as has been said multiple, multiple times-- the existence of God cannot be proven, everyone here knows that, and we get that you don't believe in God. Are you interested in discussing ANYTHING else AT ALL? Because it seems like everything you post, every question, every response, is simply a prelude to you saying the SAME THING that no one is disputing and has been agreed to at least 2 dozen times already on this thread alone.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:That may well be partly true, but behind all the pastor’s work is, they believe, God – which is assumed, believed on faith alone.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Just as we saw with your assumptions about theologians, it seems to me you have a very inaccurate understanding of what a pastor's job entails.
quote:My point was that you are NOT responding to questions or posts we're making. You are just repeating over and over again your same point-- that belief in God is not based on empirical evidence-- one we've all agreed to dozens and dozens of times. You seem to want to repeat that no matter what we say or what the context is. Since we have ALL agreed to this proposition a zillion times can't we please please please move on????
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
cliffdweller
I can only tell you that I try to answer questions and points in posts to which I respond. I simply cannot refer back to previous posts, or things I've said already. Sorry about that.]
I have found it all very interesting anyway.
quote:I'm obviously less fascinated and more irritated by it by now, but yes, you have characterized it perfectly. The biggest irritant for me is how disrespectful it is in it's depiction of theologians and believers as a whole-- as you noted, Susan is still clinging to this persistent notion that this rather banal and obvious point has never occurred to us, would completely defeat a roomful of theologians, even though we have pointed out to her time and time again that these sorts of discussions happen in theology classrooms every day. We're really not the blithering idiots she chooses to think we are. This persistent, willful ignorance is indeed ironic from someone who claims to be so committed to "the facts".
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I have to say that I find this mindset fascinating.
It seems to me that she feels she has a trump card in her hands. The question that will scatter all our delusions once and for all. "Which fact do they know about God?"
She has this image in her mind that we believers never considered this question. It has never occurred to us. If it would, we would stop believing, but the question has never crossed our minds.
And the job of theologians is to obfuscate. They say that they are telling us things about God, but according to Jerry Coyne they are just repeating what other theologians are saying. They may do this on purpose, or they may be misguided themselves. But they are the cabal, going through the motions to hide from us that we don't really know anything about God.
Hence, the all-important question. What fact do theologians know about God? (Always with the cursive for emphasis.)
She already admitted that she has this fantasy. She (or another atheist as a stand-in for her) walks into a room full of theologians and asks them this question. They fall from their chairs. "Dear Heaven, we've never considered this!" One of their thick books makes a heavy 'thud' as it falls to the floor. "Well, that's it then," Justin Welby mutters, "we might as well close shop now."
We believers have never considered this question. If we only knew that theologians know no fact about God ...
The thing is of course, it doesn't work this way. We try to tell her that this isn't what theologians do, that it depends on what you consider a 'fact', that there are plenty of things people believe in without having facts ...
But I think that these arguments barely register. It doesn't matter how often we answer this question. She is stuck in her fantasy of how this will work out, and if we don't react to her killer question the way she expected, it is obviously because she hasn't asked it strongly enough.
So she repeats: "What facts do theologians know about God?" She has already done this seven or eight times on this thread, and I predict that she'll do it a couple of times more. The delicious irony is of course that being stuck in a mindset is what she accuses us of.
I find this fascinating from a communications point of view.
quote:Wait, wait just a minute right here. Have you any idea just how insulting you are being to your local vicar? You have come straight out and said that he would flat out lie for the sake of keeping his job. You have also strongly implied that your local vicar does NOT believe as Christians do, and is in fact faking the faith. That is damn rude.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:It would be more than his job's worth to answer that, away from the Articles* he has to believe, wouldn't it?
Originally posted by Anglicano:
quote:I would, too, but I see her very rarely. But haven't you got a friendly local vicar you can ask?
I would be really interested to know how your Rural Dean would answer the main point of the question as to what theologians know about God, referring of course to the Christian god.
quote:Please note: I took care deliberately to use the conditional tense. I do not know my local vicar, perhaps I should have said 'any vicar who...'
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:Wait, wait just a minute right here. Have you any idea just how insulting you are being to your local vicar? You have come straight out and said that he would flat out lie for the sake of keeping his job.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:It would be more than his job's worth to answer that, away from the Articles* he has to believe, wouldn't it?
Originally posted by Anglicano:
quote:I would, too, but I see her very rarely. But haven't you got a friendly local vicar you can ask?
I would be really interested to know how your Rural Dean would answer the main point of the question as to what theologians know about God, referring of course to the Christian god.
quote:Why only Christians? I'd love to hear a "discussion" between one of these fervent "new atheists" and a fundamentalist imam.
Which leads me to wonder if you think most Christians in general are simply liars, and in particular pastors and vicars.
quote:You are really, really missing the point. It's hard to imagine you can be so oblivious to how insulting and disrespectful you are being to a rather large group of people.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Please note: I took care deliberately to use the conditional tense. I do not know my local vicar, perhaps I should have said 'any vicar who...'
Wait, wait just a minute right here. Have you any idea just how insulting you are being to your local vicar? You have come straight out and said that he would flat out lie for the sake of keeping his job.
quote:Is it not a condition of being ordained as a CofE vicar that the person concerned must agree to the thirty-something articles? I've tried googling for the answer but haven't found it yet, so I have e-mailed the local parish church to ask for information about this.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
SusanDoris
Your misunderstanding is in the phrase 'he has to believe'. No one has to believe.
quote:On the contrary, I understand well what it is to believe, for that is what I did for nearly 50 years. More precisely, I did not doubt the existence of God, although did not believe in heaven, hell, any miracle, or resurrection etc.
I just think you find it hard to understand why believers believe what they do since you are convinced that the evidence is not there. And so you may well doubt their veracity.
quote:'Deluded' is too pejorative a word;I just think I am one step away from the belief I held. Okay, it's metaphorically a big step, but I visualise it as standing inside a circle and then simply stepping outside it.
.]Of course you are perfectly free to see us as deluded or confused.
quote:And that is not what I did argue, is it? Which words made you infer that?
But it is insulting to argue that anyone is compelled to misrepresent because it is their job to do so.
quote:Reading that, the question that springs immediately to mind, is: If that is so, how do you know? But I'll leave it unasked!
In that sense there are aspects of faith that pass knowledge.
quote:Thank you very much for your most interesting post. I have read it several times and tucked it away in favourites list for further perusal. As I have said before, this topic has provided me with a wealth of information about the subject of theology.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Right Susan Doris
Let me for once go into the technical stuff from my Ph.D. I rarely do this, but it will probably give you some idea of the challenges within theology.
*snip*
To use belief to just imply that an individual holds certain tenets to be true is reductionist. Self-identification as someone of a faith can be made even when the person quite openly states they do not accept the tenets, see Abby Day's book Believing in Belonging for examples. Thus, a person ascribing to "I believe" can be saying a lot of things apart from "I hold these statements to be factually accurate"; rather they are implying a relationship to them which is complex.
Jengie
quote:The thing I have always found hard to digest is people who have an inner conviction so strong that they will die for it.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I find it weird myself sometimes that folks have been and are prepared to die rather than deny the hope that is in them, rather than renounce it. But that is the nature of inner conviction and also the nature of personal integrity.
quote:I think this makes it all far to personal. It is more than possible that some 'people of the cloth' have changed their beliefs a great deal without changing their practice.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I am further astonished that you haven't even talked with your local vicar and yet feel the liberty to make such remarks about him/her. You are theorizing in a vacuum, without a single fact to be seen. Not wise.
quote:You will see from my post to Barnabas62 that I will find out for certain whether an ordained vicar has to promise to believe. If my understanding that this was a requirement is wrong, I will of course apologise.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Your phrases "have to believe" and "as much as his job is worth" together paint the picture ...
quote:No requirement to believe, just to accept their historical significance. (And to aid your searching, it's the 39 Articles).
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:You will see from my post to Barnabas62 that I will find out for certain whether an ordained vicar has to promise to believe. If my understanding that this was a requirement is wrong, I will of course apologise.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Your phrases "have to believe" and "as much as his job is worth" together paint the picture ...
quote:It's called
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Is it not a condition of being ordained as a CofE vicar that the person concerned must agree to the thirty-something articles? I've tried googling for the answer but haven't found it yet, so I have e-mailed the local parish church to ask for information about this.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
SusanDoris
Your misunderstanding is in the phrase 'he has to believe'. No one has to believe.
quote:The objection is not to your suggestion that there is a requirement. I have to sign a statement of faith as a condition of my employment as a faculty member at an evangelical university. The objection was to the implication that the vicar (and really all/most clergy) is faking it-- that s/he parrots the words of assent w/o really believing them, out of crass motive to keep their job (cushy or otherwise). I think that's what Lamb is objecting to-- and it's certainly what I am objecting to. It is ridiculously insulting in it's implication of the character and integrity of your vicar and of clergypersons such as myself. And you have absolutely no basis for making such a disrespectful and hurtful claim.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:You will see from my post to Barnabas62 that I will find out for certain whether an ordained vicar has to promise to believe. If my understanding that this was a requirement is wrong, I will of course apologise.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Your phrases "have to believe" and "as much as his job is worth" together paint the picture ...
quote:I think the basic tenet is as follows: "If believers would realise that they don't know an empirical fact about God, they would stop believing." This is the pillar that underlies the discussion. The main function of theologians, their reason for existence, is to hide this from us.
cliffdweller: You are just repeating over and over again your same point-- that belief in God is not based on empirical evidence-- one we've all agreed to dozens and dozens of times. You seem to want to repeat that no matter what we say or what the context is. Since we have ALL agreed to this proposition a zillion times can't we please please please move on????
quote:Here we agree!! Harmony restored, I hope!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
LOL, the subject has changed again. Of course, it is more than possible for a theologian to believe in the 39 Articles, but still to admit that (s)he doesn't know a fact about God (in the empirical sense).
quote:I think I'm right in saying that Church of England Priests no longer have to swear that they assent to the thirty nine articles, and even if they did, that still leaves other Christian ministers eg URC and Methodist unaccounted for.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
if such a person answered that question in terms which do not comply with the 39 articles, then he would be at risk of losing his job.
quote:And yet he constantly chides his disciples for their lack of faith in the synoptic gospels, and also mentions believing in him quite a lot in the Fourth Gospel.
Originally posted by Alisdair:
It's interesting that Jesus' call to people wasn't so much 'believe in me' as 'follow me', i.e. it's the practice of faith, rather than mere expression of belief (which as Alice and the Queen point out is a highly unstable thing) that makes the difference.
quote:You seem to be a very nice person, so I believe you that no slight of thought was intended. However, it should be very clear at this point that you ARE providing slight-- not just re the comment about your local vicar (which no, your correction did not help at all) but even more so by your continual repeating of this tired old chestnut ("God's existence cannot be empirically proven") as if we haven't all agreed to this a 1000 times, as if this somehow would shock all of us out of our shoes. I know you don't mean to be insulting and disrespectful-- that is the one and only reason I haven't issued a hell-call, although I am (as anyone can see) just barely restraining myself from hell-ish response. But the fact remains, you ARE being insulting and disrespectful, in large part because of your refusal to accept our clear and repeated statements that we (and most of our clergypeople and theologians) do, in fact, realize there is no empirical proof for God, and yet we believe. You don't have to agree with that-- God knows, you won't be the only one, even on this board. But you should be able to comprehend that and respect it.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Let me just see if I can untangle this. Anglicano mentioned her Rural Dean and I said I would be interested to know how she would answer the main point of the question, i.e. what she actually knows about God. Anglicano asked if there was a local vicar I could ask, and my response, usingthe the conditional tense, was that if such a person answered that question in terms which do not comply with the 39 articles, then he would be at risk of losing his job. Since that seems to be a reasonably logical thing to say, whether that thought is right or wrong, I cannot see any way it is a personal insult to anyone, let alone the local Vicar - who does not even know I exist!. I can only say – no slight was thought of or intended.
quote:That would be an example of
Originally posted by Pomona:
I personally would be most alarmed at a priest not believing like Boogie's dad - I understand the very real issues of losing the means of providing for one's family, but as a parishoner it would be a very serious matter for the priest to be administering the sacraments while not believing. It surely has an impact on the validity of the Eucharist for example?
quote:I believe that question was answered centuries ago. The qualities or lack thereof of the officiant do not affect the efficacy of the sacrament, as long as they're not excommunicant.
Originally posted by Pomona:
I personally would be most alarmed at a priest not believing like Boogie's dad - I understand the very real issues of losing the means of providing for one's family, but as a parishoner it would be a very serious matter for the priest to be administering the sacraments while not believing. It surely has an impact on the validity of the Eucharist for example?
quote:Many academic disciplines don't start from reason, English Literature and modern (and classical) languages for example.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Theology is not like any other academic discipline, in that it does not start from reason.
quote:You've probably got the message by now from others, but LeRoc's explanation will do for me.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:And that is not what I did argue, is it? Which words made you infer that?
But it is insulting to argue that anyone is compelled to misrepresent because it is their job to do so.
quote:I think you're being too harsh now. It is more than possible to get a degree in Humanism. I realise that Humanism isn't the same as Atheism, but it comes close
Anglicano: It is not, to my knowledge, possible to study for a degree in Atheism since Atheists belief can be summarised in one word: nothing.
I also think that the history of Atheism and its influence on society are worthy of study.
quote:My wife has a phrase for it! "I know because I know in my knower"!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Reading that, the question that springs immediately to mind, is: If that is so, how do you know? But I'll leave it unasked!
In that sense there are aspects of faith that pass knowledge.
quote:Have you seen The Crucible?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:The thing I have always found hard to digest is people who have an inner conviction so strong that they will die for it.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I find it weird myself sometimes that folks have been and are prepared to die rather than deny the hope that is in them, rather than renounce it. But that is the nature of inner conviction and also the nature of personal integrity.
That's crazy IMO - to die for something which passes knowledge. In fact it's a cruel thing to do to your family. If one is in sound mind then renouncing anything should be easy (they are only words after all - one's inner convictions will remain intact, whatever the mouth says)
quote:Protasis
LeRoc: A conditional clause usually requires a main clause that starts with 'if' (there's probably a name for that).
quote:Thank you - well said!
Originally posted by Anglicano:
I'm new here and there are a lot of posts, but can I point out that it is quite possible to study for a theology degree without believing in God. I know someone who did, and got a good degree, too. I also know a "non-believer" who was a lecturer in the Philosophy of Religion. And a Vicar with a sociology degree, just in case some watheist claims that that's their subject.
It is not, to my knowledge, possible to study for a degree in Atheism since Atheists belief can be summarised in one word: nothing. TT
quote:So a half dozen posters who have been engaging you here spend the evening crafting at least a dozen posts explaining how hurtful and disrespectful you have been. You take an evening to sleep on it and respond by... changing the subject.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
This is a bit of a tangent question, but I wonder how many here also, as I do on three others, post on other forums more evenly balanced between believers and non-believers; or, in one case, balanced very much in the other direction..
quote:While it's certainly true that atheism can be stated as a lack of belief in God (or the belief that there isn’t a God - the two aren't necessarily the same), that lack of belief then carries - at least by implication - positive assertions or beliefs e.g. that the whole of reality (the universe or multi-verse) is explicable within itself since there isn’t any 'supernatural' or transcendent cause for any of it (unless you count some forms of platonic mathematics). This is in part why physicists are trying to find the Theory of Everything. A degree in Atheism could include subjects like that, or the grounds for free-will in an atheistic universe, or the basis for morality, or studies on the works of Gene Roddenberry and Joss Wheddon!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Thank you - well said!
Originally posted by Anglicano:
It is not, to my knowledge, possible to study for a degree in Atheism since Atheists belief can be summarised in one word: nothing. TT
quote:I wonder which English universities offer a degree in Humanism? Presumably this would include the Christian Humanism of people like Erasmus and Wm Wilberforce?
I think you're being too harsh now. It is more than possible to get a degree in Humanism. I realise that Humanism isn't the same as Atheism, but it comes close
quote:
While it's certainly true that atheism can be stated as a lack of belief in God (or the belief that there isn’t a God - the two aren't necessarily the same)
quote:While it's certainly true that atheism can be stated as a lack of belief in God (or the belief that there isn’t a God - the two aren't necessarily the same)
Originally posted by Anglicano:
quote:For example. Undoubtedly, Atheism had (and has) an influence on other countries too.
Anglicano: Yes, it's interesting, for example, to consider the influence that atheism in the former Communist regimes of eastern Europe had on their societies, isn't it?
quote:Going back to Humanism, I guess one way of finding out would be to look at websites of Humanist studies.
Anglicano: I wonder what jobs people with a degree in atheism would apply for?
quote:It would be interesting to know whether you have asked the same question on the other three fora, and what their responses were, in summary. Were they too consistently saying that the study of theology is possible whether or not the student believes in the existence of God, and that knowledge of God in faith terms may legitimately be subjective?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
This is a bit of a tangent question, but I wonder how many here also, as I do on three others, post on other forums more evenly balanced between believers and non-believers; or, in one case, balanced very much in the other direction..
quote:I think Humanism would be quite an interesting thing to study - and certainly no less worthwhile than studying Marxism or the various forms of interaction between Christianity and history, for example.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Going back to Humanism, I guess one way of finding out would be to look at websites of Humanist studies.
One thing I can think of: a number of Dutch institutions have, besides Christian, Muslim ... spiritual advisors also a Humanist councillor (the Dutch army has one, we famously are the only country that does). I guess some hospitals etc. have one too.
quote:And how would a "humanist councillor" differ from a "counsellor" (label free). Would s/he attempt to impart "humaninst values" (whatever they might be)?
also a Humanist councillor (the Dutch army has one, we famously are the only country that does). I guess some hospitals etc. have one too.
quote:But there's a problem, isn't there? It's not that simple. The answer as to , "do you believe in God?" could be yes/probably/possibly/probably not/no. Statements like "you either have faith or you don't" are surely banal and facile.
It all depends on how you define your terms I suppose. My preferred distinction is that atheism and theism are to do with belief (lack of a belief in God, believing there isn't a God, believing there is a God),
quote:I don't remember mentioning faith - simply the belief that a deity does or doesn’t exist. Whether someone who believes in the fact of God’s existence also has a faith commitment in God is a separate issue. If someone genuinely doesn't know whether they believe in God as opposed to whether God exists i.e. what their internal belief state is on this issue, then you could characterise that as a form of agnosticism - both about what they believe and God's existence. However, I find the distinction between belief and knowledge helpful.
Originally posted by Anglicano:
quote:But there's a problem, isn't there? It's not that simple. The answer as to , "do you believe in God?" could be yes/probably/possibly/probably not/no. Statements like "you either have faith or you don't" are surely banal and facile.
It all depends on how you define your terms I suppose. My preferred distinction is that atheism and theism are to do with belief (lack of a belief in God, believing there isn't a God, believing there is a God),
quote:Yes, this would be an interesting question for me too. What is the difference between a Humanist counsellor and a socio-psycholical counsellor? Apparently there is one, since there seems to be a need to have Humanist counsellors.
Anglicano: And how would a "humanist councillor" differ from a "counsellor" (label free).
quote:Is that a concern for you? I have to say that I often have trouble getting into a 'land-grabbing' mentality. I don't feel that this is necessarily the right approach here.
Anglicano: Would s/he attempt to impart "humaninst values" (whatever they might be)?
quote:I've heard that NFarage says that, he "does not rule out the possibility of some sort of supreme being. Further than that (he) will not go". If you want a label, or if he does, would "agnostic" suffice? And David Cameron calls himself "the most wishy washy of Anglicans". I imagine that's a bit harder for you to label.
I don't remember mentioning faith - simply the belief that a deity does or doesn’t exist.
quote:Sorry, I'm not sure what the UBB code is. Do I have one? Also the practice thread baffled me.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/
Anglicano, I appreciate the forum UBB code can be unwieldy, especially to the uninitiated, but not using it properly makes an unreadable mess of posts, especially when they start getting quoted, and at worst leads to misattribution of comments.
All of this makes the hosts cry, so please use the "preview post" feature to make sure your post looks as you intended, or failing that visit the UBB Practice Thread in the Styx to hone your formatting skills.
Thanks in advance
/hosting
quote:No, I didn't actually!
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It would be interesting to know whether you have asked the same question on the other three fora, and what their responses were, in summary. Were they too consistently saying that the study of theology is possible whether or not the student believes in the existence of God, and that knowledge of God in faith terms may legitimately be subjective?
quote:Much admiration!
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I have just slogged through this thread,...
quote:The discussion is always the main point, and as I have said a couple of times, I now know a whole lot about theology that I never knew before.
... and I must say how much I respect all those who have patiently given much thought and effort to providing answers and explanations to someone who apparently expects instant conversion to atheism based simply on her oft-repeated question.
quote:Really??? Well, glad to hear it, because you have not given any indication you have learned anything at all-- nor even that you are interested in discussion. What exactly have you learned about theology?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:The discussion is always the main point, and as I have said a couple of times, I now know a whole lot about theology that I never knew before.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
... and I must say how much I respect all those who have patiently given much thought and effort to providing answers and explanations to someone who apparently expects instant conversion to atheism based simply on her oft-repeated question.
quote:I'm sorry, but it would take me a day or so to listen through all my posts here to find the ones in which I have said I now know a lot about theology that I did not know before.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Really??? Well, glad to hear it, because you have not given any indication you have learned anything at all-- nor even that you are interested in discussion. What exactly have you learned about theology?
quote:I've never 'converted' to anything either! The belief in God I had just faded away and disappeared all on its own!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've never converted to anything. Maybe I should; I want to be triumphalist too!
quote:I wasn't asking you to document that you had mentioned it before, just to name some things you have learned. Off the top of your head.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:I'm sorry, but it would take me a day or so to listen through all my posts here to find the ones in which I have said I now know a lot about theology that I did not know before.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Really??? Well, glad to hear it, because you have not given any indication you have learned anything at all-- nor even that you are interested in discussion. What exactly have you learned about theology?
It is possible that I am mistaken, but I don't think so.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thank you for your phrase 'triumphalist atheists', very good. It is very like a religious faith, and I wonder if some atheists, who have moved from Christianity or other religion, retain their faith-based approach, but switch the object of their faith. By gum, what a fabulous topic for an M. Phil. or Ph. D.!
quote:May I second cliffdweller's request and ask you to give us some examples?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
...as I have said a couple of times, I now know a whole lot about theology that I never knew before.
quote:I know one who did. He was a strident, fundamentalist Christian. He is now a strident atheist who hates everything Christian.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if some atheists, who have moved from Christianity or other religion, retain their faith-based approach, but switch the object of their faith. By gum, what a fabulous topic for an M. Phil. or Ph. D.!
quote:Link for those who are interested.
Originally posted by shamwari:
The discussion seems to me to be unfairly polarised.
There is a tenable position known as Christian Agnosticism to which I subscribe.
Try the hymn " I cannot tell why he whom angels worship" for example.
quote:That, of course, is simply not true.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The one thing it does not do apparently is to study God!
quote:But it does. I should think that the contents of this thread would have made that - among many other things - quite clear.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
...The one thing it does not do apparently is to study God! Well, how can it? ...
quote:I see what you mean but it's unsatisfactory to call it studying ideas or concepts about God, it seems to me. Rather, it's studying observations made about God, usually based on personal experiences of God which are shared. When some verbalise their experiences, others are able to recognise their own and expand the vocabulary. Naturally those who don't believe that the experiences are real and outside of the imagination will not understand this, but they will be able to study the effects on the lives of the believers, nevertheless.
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Perhaps SusanDoris is distinguishing between studying God directly and studying ideas or concepts about God. It's a fair distinction. However, if God were the sort of thing which could be studied directly, He wouldn't be the God of traditional theistic belief. Some realities simply can't be studied directly. I have said before, there is a orthodox school of apophatic theology which takes this into account.
quote:Now SusanDoris (if she's paying attention) drops her thick book to the floor, stunned into silence. There is an awkward shifting in the chair, a hurried fumbling with papers, clearing of the throat... then quickly changing the subject...
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The 'where is God in this?' question arises frequently, to focus the study.
quote:You neglect the fact that "study" in the Atheictionary means "study via the scientific method."
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:But it does. I should think that the contents of this thread would have made that - among many other things - quite clear.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
...The one thing it does not do apparently is to study God! Well, how can it? ...
quote:But the scientific method cannot prove the God an invention, any more than faith can prove God exists. Were I a member of First Church of Atheist Evangelical, I think I'd want to avoid that whole discussion.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You neglect the fact that "study" in the Atheictionary means "study via the scientific method."
quote:You clearly haven't been studying your Atheist Catechism. The scientific method doesn't have to prove anything about God not existing. Anything that has not been proven by the scientific method automatically doesn't exist. Or, perhaps, doesn't matter at all and can be safely discounted. Same diff.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:But the scientific method cannot prove the God an invention, any more than faith can prove God exists. Were I a member of First Church of Atheist Evangelical, I think I'd want to avoid that whole discussion.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You neglect the fact that "study" in the Atheictionary means "study via the scientific method."
quote:It is clear that many people believe that to be so, but, well, I will leave it there.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:But it does. I should think that the contents of this thread would have made that - among many other things - quite clear.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
...The one thing it does not do apparently is to study God! Well, how can it? ...
quote:Thank you- I have been trying to make that clear all along!
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Perhaps SusanDoris is distinguishing between studying God directly and studying ideas or concepts about God. It's a fair distinction.
quote:
However, if God were the sort of thing which could be studied directly, He wouldn't be the God of traditional theistic belief. Some realities simply can't be studied directly. I have said before, there is a orthodox school of apophatic theology which takes this into account.
quote:You wouldn't be the first.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
So I'm too logical to be an atheist?
quote:Do we study ANYTHING directly? Not much, I'd say. Much if not most of what we study is done through instruments such as electron microscopes, radiotelescopes, and so forth. The medical profession often studies people by chemically testing their blood, urine, etc.
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Perhaps SusanDoris is distinguishing between studying God directly and studying ideas or concepts about God. It's a fair distinction.
quote:Two other things that rattle them: the atheist regimes in the former Soviet block; and the fact that many scientists are theists.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:But the scientific method cannot prove the God an invention, any more than faith can prove God exists. Were I a member of First Church of Atheist Evangelical, I think I'd want to avoid that whole discussion.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You neglect the fact that "study" in the Atheictionary means "study via the scientific method."
quote:Right, but philosophy, theology and the study of ideas are a different kind of study than (let's say eg physical) science. Perhaps the language used above is a bit unhelpful, but I think I generally agree that mostly in science one this thinking about something tangible one can observe and test and think about.*
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do we study ANYTHING directly? Not much, I'd say. Much if not most of what we study is done through instruments such as electron microscopes, radiotelescopes, and so forth. The medical profession often studies people by chemically testing their blood, urine, etc.
"Studying [something] directly" is a weasel term. We study precious little directly.
We study God, as has been said already, by talking to and comparing notes with people who have experienced God. God doesn't intersect the world at the business end of an electron microscope or in a blood serum level test. God intersects the world in the human soul.
quote:I think the acceptable degree of abstraction in mathematics is greater than in philosophy. Mathematics starts off by defining its terms and axioms, and from that point onwards it doesn't care about any grounding in the empirical world. Whereas philosophy is at least trying to interpret human experience, even if it can get quite rarified in the process. (Of course, one of the things philosophers debate is what is philosophy, so not all philosophers would agree with me on that.)
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In contrast, say in mathematics, one is creating a construct (which may indeed be very helpful in understanding and explaining how the world works) which can only be proved in its own terms.
Philosophy is that kind of thing. Theology is a form of philosophy, albeit one where believers interpret various physical stimuli in co-ordination with the emotions and the intellect to suggest communications from a deity.
quote:It isn't my aim to rattle Atheists.
Anglicano: Two other things that rattle them: the atheist regimes in the former Soviet block; and the fact that many scientists are theists.
quote:I see the
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(PS SusanDoris sent an email to the vicar where she lives and she got an answer the next day? Wow.)
but as I cannot tell whether you are simply smiling or intending a degree of sarcasm, I would be grateful if you would say. Thanks.
quote:Perhaps a better term to use would've been empirically or objectively.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Do we study ANYTHING directly? Not much, I'd say. Much if not most of what we study is done through instruments such as electron microscopes, radiotelescopes, and so forth. The medical profession often studies people by chemically testing their blood, urine, etc.
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Perhaps SusanDoris is distinguishing between studying God directly and studying ideas or concepts about God. It's a fair distinction.
"Studying [something] directly" is a weasel term. We study precious little directly.
We study God, as has been said already, by talking to and comparing notes with people who have experienced God. God doesn't intersect the world at the business end of an electron microscope or in a blood serum level test. God intersects the world in the human soul.
quote:I didn't use a smiley, maybe it's your software playing up?
SusanDoris: I see the
quote:I've never converted to anything either! I simply drifted back to Anglicanism and enjoyed doing so. But I don't go to Atheist/Humanist forums to challenge.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I've never 'converted' to anything either! The belief in God I had just faded away and disappeared all on its own!
quote:Well, what is meant is "scientifically." The answer to "theologians don't study g[G]od scientifically" is "No fucking shit, Sherlock. Pull the other one."
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Perhaps a better term to use would've been empirically or objectively.
quote:Thank you for your reply. I should imagine it was the novelty of the question that intrigued him!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I didn't use a smiley, maybe it's your software playing up?
FWIW, I was quite serious. I know a lot of clergy, and I know how busy they are. That he found the time to answer you within a day is quite impressive. I hope you appreciate it.
quote:Are you having a bad day? If the discussion is about the difference between science and theology, then saying that "theologians don't study God scientifically" is clearly not really a very good point to argue.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, what is meant is "scientifically." The answer to "theologians don't study g[G]od scientifically" is "No fucking shit, Sherlock. Pull the other one."
quote:That's an interesting point, I hadn't heard that.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Would it help if we asked what is meant by 'know' in this context?
For example, do we know that the man Geoffrey Chaucer, who was Comptroller of the King's Works and is buried in Westminster Abbey, wrote the Canterbury Tales? (The evidence is entirely circumstantial - we know the poet was called Chaucer and there's internal evidence in his poems that he moved in court circles, and the Comptroller of the King's Works is the only known Geoffrey Chaucer in those circles.)
Ordinarily we wouldn't raise an eyebrow were someone to state without qualification that Chaucer was the poet.
Is it only knowledge if it is absolutely secure?
quote:I think it's knowledge if it's 'fit for purpose'.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is it only knowledge if it is absolutely secure?
quote:Well that's true, but graphene may present significant risks to the environment.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think it's knowledge if it's 'fit for purpose'.
Scientific knowledge works. For example
graphene is an amazing material which is going to change all our lives.
It works.
quote:That has to be a subjective view in and of itself, right? Brutalist neo-Nazis have a history which gives them a sense of purpose, but it isn't a good one, is it?
Historical knowledge is fit for purpose if it gives us a sense of where we have come from.
quote:Mmm. I'm not sure whether this axiom holds either. Philosophy is a pretty dangerous tool, I'm not sure just thinking about Plato's philosophy is the purpose of it. He seems to be wanting to push readers into a particular direction with the ideals of society and knowledge.
Philosophical knowledge is fir for purpose if it makes us think.
quote:I don't think there is a way to distinguish theological knowledge and philosophical knowledge. If the purpose of the one is to offer a way to examine one's own life in order to make it worth living, then that must also be the purpose of the other. In my view, theology is a philosophy, albeit one which runs along particular lines.
Theological knowledge is fit for purpose if .... I don't know - do you?
quote:I don't think many would agree that the only way to distinguish good and bad philosophy (useful and unhelpful, maybe?) is by the strength of numbers.
That's why I compered theology with art (not science or history) because it's entirely subjective. The only strength it has is in numbers, the number of people who say it is 'good' and fit to hang in a gallery.
quote:It is quite hard to comment on your post when it compares something many here hold as important to a whim or superstition.
Here is the post I made.
No one commented either way.
quote:Tell that to artists who give their life to it!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is quite hard to comment on your post when it compares something many here hold as important to a whim or superstition.
quote:When did I say that?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, you believe it is all humbug: so why are you here? What are you gaining from hanging around with people who want to talk about stuff you think is of no importance?
quote:I think you have a misconception about Art Studies. They are much more objective than you believe them to be. In fact, this is the same kind of misconception SusanDoris has about Theology. Art Studies doesn't say "this painting is beautiful", just as Theology doesn't say "God exists".
Boogie: Theological knowledge is fit for purpose if .... I don't know - do you?
That's why I compered theology with art (not science or history) because it's entirely subjective.
quote:Me neither.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Honestly, I don't see why this is so difficult to get.
quote:Yes, I think that some atheists give to the word 'know' some special quality, as if while we really know how gravity works, or the specific heat of raspberry jam, we don't know how love works.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Would it help if we asked what is meant by 'know' in this context?
For example, do we know that the man Geoffrey Chaucer, who was Comptroller of the King's Works and is buried in Westminster Abbey, wrote the Canterbury Tales? (The evidence is entirely circumstantial - we know the poet was called Chaucer and there's internal evidence in his poems that he moved in court circles, and the Comptroller of the King's Works is the only known Geoffrey Chaucer in those circles.)
Ordinarily we wouldn't raise an eyebrow were someone to state without qualification that Chaucer was the poet.
Is it only knowledge if it is absolutely secure?
quote:As LeRoc and mr cheesy have said, I think both theology and art are a lot closer to philosophy than you allow.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Philosophical knowledge is fir for purpose if it makes us think.
Theological knowledge is fit for purpose if .... I don't know - do you?
That's why I compered theology with art (not science or history) because it's entirely subjective.
quote:We have told you a 1000x now that it's not a novel question. We are not shocked, embarrassed, dumbfounded, or amazed by your question. It's a good question, but nothing new or shocking or unexpected. Your clergy person is making time for you because s/he sees answering these sorts of questions as part of the job-- and because s/he is a kind and generous person. I pray you find the conversation helpful.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Thank you for your reply. I should imagine it was the novelty of the question that intrigued him!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I didn't use a smiley, maybe it's your software playing up?
FWIW, I was quite serious. I know a lot of clergy, and I know how busy they are. That he found the time to answer you within a day is quite impressive. I hope you appreciate it.
quote:I would certainly agree that historical knowledge is different again, although I think they all turn into each other around the edges.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But wouldn't you say that historical knowledge is different again to theological knowledge? I was reading an interesting piece by a historical writer the other day who was saying that historian are not even trying to be objective but are trying to create an engaging narrative which makes sense of the known information.
quote:But If Theology and Art studies can't answer those questions what good are they if what you want to know is the answer to those questions?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I think you have a misconception about Art Studies. They are much more objective than you believe them to be. In fact, this is the same kind of misconception SusanDoris has about Theology. Art Studies doesn't say "this painting is beautiful", just as Theology doesn't say "God exists".
Boogie: Theological knowledge is fit for purpose if .... I don't know - do you?
That's why I compered theology with art (not science or history) because it's entirely subjective.
Your question has been answered a couple of times on this thread already.
quote:Ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments?
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
just as Theology doesn't say "God exists"..
quote:Believe me, my answer was couched in terms relevant to this particular town and the Vicar's congregation!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
We have told you a 1000x now that it's not a novel question. We are not shocked, embarrassed, dumbfounded, or amazed by your question. It's a good question, but nothing new or shocking or unexpected. Your clergy person is making time for you because s/he sees answering these sorts of questions as part of the job-- and because s/he is a kind and generous person. I pray you find the conversation helpful.
quote:Not good at all. Art Studies won't help you decide whether you find a painting beautiful or not. And Theology won't help you decide whether God exists or not. That isn't what they're supposed to do. They are quite useful for other things though.
Ikkyu: But If Theology and Art studies can't answer those questions what good are they if what you want to know is the answer to those questions?
quote:Then you're translating it wrong. That's not what she is asking (if that is what she's asking then she's formulating it wrong).
Ikkyu: The way I translate SusanDoris's question that began this thread is "Show me God".
quote:What I ridicule is the fact that I (and others) have answered her question a number of times, but instead of doing something with our answers, she simply askes the same question again. Ridiculing that is fair game to me.
Ikkyu: But the repeated ridicule poked at the question seems to me an evasion of dealing with the actual question.
quote:I thought I had made that quite clear in the OP.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Would it help if we asked what is meant by 'know' in this context?
quote:This is not a good comparison, since there is no doubt that the Canterbury tales were written and that the personwho wrote them was a or possibly were, a living person, or persons.
For example, do we know that the man Geoffrey Chaucer, who was Comptroller of the King's Works and is buried in Westminster Abbey, wrote the Canterbury Tales?
quote:I think that would depend on what use is being made of such insecure knowledge.
Is it only knowledge if it is absolutely secure?
quote:Sorry not to have put a post in
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think it's knowledge if it's 'fit for purpose'.
Scientific knowledge works. For example
graphene is an amazing material which is going to change all our lives.
It works.
Historical knowledge is fit for purpose if it gives us a sense of where we have come from.
Philosophical knowledge is fir for purpose if it makes us think.
Theological knowledge is fit for purpose if .... I don't know - do you?
That's why I compered theology with art (not science or history) because it's entirely subjective. The only strength it has is in numbers, the number of people who say it is 'good' and fit to hang in a gallery.
Here is the post I made.
No one commented either way.
but I have of course been reading all your posts with interest and thinking, 'Yeah! Good post!' in my head!!
quote:I might have had some misconceptions about
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I think you have a misconception about Art Studies. They are much more objective than you believe them to be. In fact, this is the same kind of misconception SusanDoris has about Theology.
Boogie: Theological knowledge is fit for purpose if .... I don't know - do you?
That's why I compered theology with art (not science or history) because it's entirely subjective.
quote:Most people would not disagree that opinions on works of Art are personal and subjective, but all would agree that the art work is there to be considered. Of course theology cannot say that God exists!
Art Studies doesn't say "this painting is beautiful", just as Theology doesn't say "God exists".
quote:Excellent - delighted to hear this!!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
One of my sons is a devout atheist (!) and he keeps me well up to date with the latest views on my dangerous and outmoded beliefs. I'm also on the circulation list for the James Randi Foundation. Reading and debating sceptical stuff is bracing.
quote:Religious texts are there to be considered. Religious buildings and works of art are there to be considered. Religious institutions are there to be considered. Religious concepts are there to be considered. Religious influences on society are there to be considered.
SusanDoris: Most people would not disagree that opinions on works of Art are personal and subjective, but all would agree that the art work is there to be considered.
quote:Would you say that the idea/belief that God exists is personal and subjective?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Most people would not disagree that opinions on works of Art are personal and subjective, but all would agree that the art work is there to be considered. Of course theology cannot say that God exists!
quote:Thank you - well said, say I!
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
But If Theology and Art studies can't answer those questions what good are they if what you want to know is the answer to those questions?
The way I translate SusanDoris's question that began this thread is "Show me God". And the answers have been mostly poking fun at the request like its not a valid question.
"Of course Theology does not really deal with Gods existence" People are even offended when asked to share evidence of God.
I am a Non-theist and the answers that I find helpful to questions like this are pointers at why "God" makes a positive difference in someone's life. Or some idea of how they deal with the lack of more "objective" evidence.
But the repeated ridicule poked at the question seems to me an evasion of dealing with the actual question. Show me God.
quote:Theology and theologists do not, however, know one thing about God unless they could show such a thing exists. I don't suppose you will acknowledge that but I have looked back at the OP to check what I wrote.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Religious texts are there to be considered. Religious buildings and works of art are there to be considered. Religious institutions are there to be considered. Religious concepts are there to be considered. Religious influences on society are there to be considered.
SusanDoris: Most people would not disagree that opinions on works of Art are personal and subjective, but all would agree that the art work is there to be considered.
That's what Theology does.
quote:I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT!!!
SusanDoris: Theology and theologists do not, however, know one thing about God unless they could show such a thing exists. I don't suppose you will acknowledge that but I have looked back at the OP to check what I wrote.
quote:Hmmm, yes and no. Yes, logically it is, but no in that so many millions of people interpret their experiences in similar ways that they not only take them for granted, but think they should be true for others too.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Would you say that the idea/belief that God exists is personal and subjective?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Most people would not disagree that opinions on works of Art are personal and subjective, but all would agree that the art work is there to be considered. Of course theology cannot say that God exists!
quote:Having learnt that all things in our galaxy and the universe happen because of the way everything evolved, then I wonder and marvel at it all without any need to include the God I was taught to thank when young- because it is the real magic of things. May I ask you whether, when you thank God for natural beauty, you would teach children to do the same, or would you leave God out of it? If you would prefer not to answer, then no problem, especially since I have enjoyed reading your posts here so much. Thank you.
I would say we interpret our experiences in the light of this deep belief. I have a deep belief that God exists, which I can't shake off, try as I might.
So when I see a wonderful sunset I am thankful to (what I 'know' of) God. This experience is utterly and completely personal and subjective imo. It's also, as far as I can see, of no interest to theologians.
quote:I've just reread the OP. I can't see where you make what you mean by 'know' quite clear.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:I thought I had made that quite clear in the OP.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Would it help if we asked what is meant by 'know' in this context?
quote:It's not a comparison. I'm asking where the boundaries of the word 'know' lie.
quote:This is not a good comparison, since there is no doubt that the Canterbury tales were written and that the personwho wrote them was a or possibly were, a living person, or persons.
For example, do we know that the man Geoffrey Chaucer, who was Comptroller of the King's Works and is buried in Westminster Abbey, wrote the Canterbury Tales?
quote:That's a sort of reverse Pascal's wager.
quote:I think that would depend on what use is being made of such insecure knowledge.
Is it only knowledge if it is absolutely secure?
quote:Sorry, I entered this thread very late I did not want to annoy.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And to be honest, hearing again and again that we're evading the question after we've already answered it at least a dozen of times on this thread alone is starting to get a bit rich.
quote:Yes and no.
Ikkyu: Its just that the description of what they do describes something that seems pretty useless if what you are interested in is "God".
)quote:That's absolutely fine. If you're unsure about God, then the Oxford Journal of Theological Studies probably isn't the right place to start. It probably won't take your incertainties away, that's not what it sets out to do.
Ikkyu: On the other hand an answer like Boogie's actually brings me closer to what "God" might be if she existed.
quote:The more I think about this the more I appreciate my uncertainties. I used to find not knowing rather upsetting. These days not knowing seems
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:About the rest of the post your point was very clear I wish I could write like that.
snip
quote:That's absolutely fine. If you're unsure about God, then the Oxford Journal of Theological Studies probably isn't the right place to start. It probably won't take your uncertainties away, that's not what it sets out to do.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
[QUOTE]
Ikkyu: On the other hand an answer like Boogie's actually brings me closer to what "God" might be if she existed.
quote:I agree. I think its also helpful for those who are too certain about God.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Having a conversation with someone who is also unsure about God is much more helpful. Of course it is.
quote:Is this in hell? I missed the move notice.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Are you having a bad day?
quote:I know that Aslan is a lion. I know that Sinbad was a sailor. I know that phlogiston has to do with something being combustible. And not only can I not show these things exist, I know for a fact they do not.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Theology and theologists do not, however, know one thing about God unless they could show such a thing exists.
quote:That's probably for the best.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
It is clear that many people believe that to be so, but, well, I will leave it there.
quote:Something to think about Jamat
Originally posted by Jamat:
Ontological Argument
Something to think about Susan.
quote:Alas, no.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I thought I had made that quite clear in the OP.
quote:The number of people arguing for God does not increase its liklihood.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I (and others) have been arguing on this thread is that concepts of God can be studied in an objective way and that it is useful to do this, whether God exists or not.
quote:The OP mentioned a video then said:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:Alas, no.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I thought I had made that quite clear in the OP.
quote:I do not see ambiguity there! If you do, could you please say why?
However, at one point he asked what do Theologians know - i.e. really know - about God.
... ... So I tentatively pose the question here ... ...
quote:And where, pray tell, are you going to find a non-human concept of anything, let alone God? I don't think the dolphins, etc. are advanced enough for that sort of thinking.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:The number of people arguing for God does not increase its liklihood.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I (and others) have been arguing on this thread is that concepts of God can be studied in an objective way and that it is useful to do this, whether God exists or not.
The concept of God is an entirely human one, and it has gradually built and changed over thousands of years. Any study of these concepts is a study of human thinking, human nature, being in more recent times labelled psychology, etc.
quote:I believe the term for this is "chronological snobbery." The ontological argument, whatever you may think of it, is probably the single least time-bound argument in all theology.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Jamat
Thank you for the link. I have listened to part of it, but since, for a start, he was an 11th/12th century man, I wonder how his views would change were he alive today with access to the wealth of factual information available. Ahead of his time he most probably was and there is of course wisdom which always carries through whatever beliefs there are.
quote:The Ontological Argument may have originated with Anselm then, but it has been discussed, debated and reformulated up to the present day e.g. by Norman Malcolm and the mathematician Kurt Godel using modal logic.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:I believe the term for this is "chronological snobbery." The ontological argument, whatever you may think of it, is probably the single least time-bound argument in all theology.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Jamat
Thank you for the link. I have listened to part of it, but since, for a start, he was an 11th/12th century man, I wonder how his views would change were he alive today with access to the wealth of factual information available. Ahead of his time he most probably was and there is of course wisdom which always carries through whatever beliefs there are.
I haven't a clue what to think of it myself, but I'm not going to dismiss it on the grounds that it's old.
quote:The concept of God may have changed over the centuries, but a concept isn't the same as the 'reality in itself'. It is possible to draw up a fairly good concept of God (often referred to as 'philosophical theism'), which is common to representative thinkers within the major religious traditions.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:The number of people arguing for God does not increase its liklihood.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I (and others) have been arguing on this thread is that concepts of God can be studied in an objective way and that it is useful to do this, whether God exists or not.
The concept of God is an entirely human one, and it has gradually built and changed over thousands of years. Any study of these concepts is a study of human thinking, human nature, being in more recent times labelled psychology, etc.
quote:Sociology of religion is I think at least relevant as the effects of being interested in God.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Its just that the description of what they do describes something that seems pretty useless if what you are interested in is "God". Not Sociology of religion, not textual studies of the Bible not cultural studies but "God".
quote:Yes, I would put theology in one of those subsets, the study of human thinking about God.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The concept of God is an entirely human one, and it has gradually built and changed over thousands of years. Any study of these concepts is a study of human thinking, human nature, being in more recent times labelled psychology, etc.
quote:What's a theoloGIST?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
theologists
quote:LOL, you're not only moving the goalposts, you have them permanently strapped to your back, carrying them all around the pitch with a little detour along the city mall.
SusanDoris: The number of people arguing for God does not increase its liklihood.
quote:It's perfectly OK for you to believe that. Really, it is.
SusanDoris: The concept of God is an entirely human one, and it has gradually built and changed over thousands of years. Any study of these concepts is a study of human thinking, human nature, being in more recent times labelled psychology, etc.
quote:Nah.
Originally posted by Alisdair:
The box labelled 'What theologians [read 'human beings'] actually know about God.' will, and must, remain defiantly empty, and for very good reasons---we are not 'machines', we are loved, and we are set free, as the beloved always must be if they truly are loved.
quote:You might find this interesting.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I wonder how many go back a step and deeply study human thinking about the existence of God? Human development of the concept 'God'? It would make sense to do so. But going too deeply into such studies would bring them into anthropology and evolution and possibly shake some conservative Christian's faith so much that they wouldn't want to go there.
quote:A mistake - and I think you will concede that I try to make sure that typos do not occur too often!
Originally posted by leo:
quote:What's a theoloGIST?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
theologists
quote:That's a great position to be in. And thank you for posting that link.
Ikkyu: The more I think about this the more I appreciate my uncertainties. I used to find not knowing rather upsetting. These days not knowing seems
to open more doors for me.
Only Don't Know
quote:Are you including me in that?
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:I agree. I think its also helpful for those who are too certain about God.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Having a conversation with someone who is also unsure about God is much more helpful. Of course it is.
)quote:Well, I gues that depends on your understanding of 'freedom' in the context of Love. I have done my best to set my children 'free': I have given them what I know of life, God, love, but I am trying to let them go to make their own choices about these things, rather than be compelled/manipulated into being merely a projection of myself.
If we depend on God for everything, why should he 'set us free'? - Boogie
quote:Yes, me too - very much so.
Originally posted by Alisdair:
quote:Well, I gues that depends on your understanding of 'freedom' in the context of Love. I have done my best to set my children 'free': I have given them what I know of life, God, love, but I am trying to let them go to make their own choices about these things, rather than be compelled/manipulated into being merely a projection of myself.
If we depend on God for everything, why should he 'set us free'? - Boogie
quote:I wonder how you would answer your own question here? Human concepts of God can be studied with a resulting increase in knowledge and understanding of human character and behaviour.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And where, pray tell, are you going to find a non-human concept of anything, let alone God?
quote:No; do you? Dolphins and whales may well have concepts but we will only know that when there is a far more sophisticated ability to understand their brains.
Or do you think a concept can exist without a mind to think it?
quote:My OP question was clear. There has been no objective fact about God - or any other god from ancient Sumerian, through Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Indian, Chinese, Polynesian, etc. The one to which I referred was the one believed in by Christians. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think it is others who have brought in the red herrings. Not that that mattered, because, and I repeat, I have learnt a lot during this thread.
As for number of believers influencing likelihood of truth, I think you know very well that has nothing to do with what LeRoc was saying. No need to drag red herrings across the trail.
quote:Sounds very reasonable and could well be a good way of teaching the young how our ancestors thought and how, therefore, history has been what it is. Such teaching would not teach that any god is factual though.
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
The concept of God may have changed over the centuries, but a concept isn't the same as the 'reality in itself'. It is possible to draw up a fairly good concept of God (often referred to as 'philosophical theism'), which is common to representative thinkers within the major religious traditions.
quote:It's that little word that is the stumbling block, isn't it?! Thank you for the question though. I much prefer to think of love as an increasingly well understood emotion with many aspects which have continuously evolved.
Originally posted by Alisdair:
I wonder if SusanDoris has considered the implications of the possibility that if...
quote:Please do not give it a second's thought!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:LOL, you're not only moving the goalposts, you have them permanently strapped to your back, carrying them all around the pitch with a little detour along the city mall.
SusanDoris: The number of people arguing for God does not increase its liklihood.
If you think I was trying to make an argument by numbers here, I'm not the one who's going to be able to get this idea out of your head.
quote:It's also available on audio CD from (amongst other places) Amazon.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:You might find this interesting.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I wonder how many go back a step and deeply study human thinking about the existence of God? Human development of the concept 'God'? It would make sense to do so. But going too deeply into such studies would bring them into anthropology and evolution and possibly shake some conservative Christian's faith so much that they wouldn't want to go there.
It's not the full book (which I've got at home and reckon to be a good and informative read) but there is quite a lot there to get your teeth into. The intro tells you that it's written by an agnostic ex-nun.
quote:No, but the concept of God within that tradition is inextricably tied to the main arguments for God's existence including the Ontological and Cosmological arguments.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Sounds very reasonable and could well be a good way of teaching the young how our ancestors thought and how, therefore, history has been what it is. Such teaching would not teach that any god is factual though.
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
The concept of God may have changed over the centuries, but a concept isn't the same as the 'reality in itself'. It is possible to draw up a fairly good concept of God (often referred to as 'philosophical theism'), which is common to representative thinkers within the major religious traditions.
quote:May I suggest, then, that you start a new topic?
Le Roc: To me, this thread is mostly about Theology, much less about God.
quote:I, however, was more interested in facts.
In fact, I've been avoiding discussing God on this thread, wanting to restrict my discussion to Theology here.
quote:I must correct you there. Discussions, both here and on a couple of other forums, are important to me because my degree of blindnesss closes off quite a few pursuits I would have done otherwise. If I still had good sight, I’d be an atheist, yes, but I am always aware that if there is going to be a change in world thinking about god beliefs, then it is going to be very slow and in my remaining years I, personally, can only drop the smallest pebble in the ocean. The subject does not crop up in any other part of my life except occasionally in discussion with my similarly thinking neighbour next door.
… (after all discussions I've had with her on previous threads). I'm starting to get a better appreciation of how important her Atheism is for her on an emotional level.
quote:Kinda have to if this conversation is to continue. As has been pointed out many times, it gets tiresome for us to agree with you point over and over again merely to have you repeat it louder and longer time and time again. So we wanted to move the conversation along. In retrospect, it would have been better to kill this thread or move it to dead horses and start anew, rather than continue this endless self-reinforcing cycle of futility.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
My OP question was clear. There has been no objective fact about God - or any other god from ancient Sumerian, through Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Indian, Chinese, Polynesian, etc. The one to which I referred was the one believed in by Christians. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think it is others who have brought in the red herrings.
quote:Yet, when asked, you were unable to name a single one of those things you have learned.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Not that that mattered, because, and I repeat, I have learnt a lot during this thread.
quote:Not just our ancestors!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Sounds very reasonable and could well be a good way of teaching the young how our ancestors thought and how, therefore, history has been what it is.
quote:Of course it does increase the likelihood of the existence of God if more rather than less people express their consciousness of God's presence. If only a few did, the likelihood of their imagining it would surely increase.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The number of people arguing for God does not increase its liklihood.
The concept of God is an entirely human one, and it has gradually built and changed over thousands of years. Any study of these concepts is a study of human thinking, human nature, being in more recent times labelled psychology, etc.
quote:Yes, of course, that is logical as both believers and non-believers must allow for the possibility that evidence may be found which proves them wrong. It is not a 50/50 chance though is it? After many thousand of years the believers' assertions and claims are all based on subjective personal experience,and non-believers' confidence is based on a total lack of facts about any god which has ever been worshipped or believed in.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
SusanDoris
You realise the corrallory of that, the number of people arguing that God does not exist, does not change whether he exists or not?
quote:A strong point in favour of theologians, I feel!
Actually there is an argument for God based on probability but it is largely not accepted by theologians. The problem is it assumes that you can put probabilities on the various arguments for the existence of God and by adding them together get certainty.
quote:It is not the case that theologians avoid any aspect of God that has been recorded (and after all, what do we know about anything other than what others have recorded?). In fact, Christian theology is so challenging, particularly when studying the scriptures, that some struggle with a faith that has latched on to any certainties. Some lose their faith, for others it grows stronger, depending upon how ready we are to be open minded and to ask questions, while holding on to faith.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes, I would put theology in one of those subsets, the study of human thinking about God.
I wonder how many go back a step and deeply study human thinking about the existence of God? Human development of the concept 'God'? It would make sense to do so. But going too deeply into such studies would bring them into anthropology and evolution and possibly shake some conservative Christian's faith so much that they wouldn't want to go there.
quote:What about Roman/Greek/Hindu gods? What does their existence depend on?
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I am among the believers who hold that you will never find absolute evidence for God's Existence because to talk of God's existing is a category mistake. Existence depends on God, not God on existence. It is like asking "what time is coal?"
quote:I know what you mean, I believe in God and I certainly can't point to him/her. I think God is the 'glue' which holds the whole caboodle (life/universe/everything) together.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Their existence depends on God as does all existence. If you pushed me I would say that God Supra-exists.
quote:That would be boring.
Boogie: But why can't we point to that glue
quote:Ever and always on human imagination, isn't it?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:What about Roman/Greek/Hindu gods? What does their existence depend on?
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I am among the believers who hold that you will never find absolute evidence for God's Existence because to talk of God's existing is a category mistake. Existence depends on God, not God on existence. It is like asking "what time is coal?"
quote:Ah, yes, such a clever man. I'm in the process of re-reading many of the earlier and middle ones, on talking books, and at present I'm on 'Thief of Time', having just finished 'The Truth'.
Have you read 'Small Gods' by Terry Pratchett? His gods got smaller and smaller as they lost believers. The Great God Om became so small he had to inhabit a small turtle - as he only had one True Believer - Brutha.
It's a great tale which makes you think.
quote:Isn't the 19thC JEPD* theory pretty much an outworking of theologians doing precisely that.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boogie:
[qb] Yes, I would put theology in one of those subsets, the study of human thinking about God.
I wonder how many go back a step and deeply study human thinking about the existence of God? Human development of the concept 'God'? It would make sense to do so. But going too deeply into such studies would bring them into anthropology and evolution and possibly shake some conservative Christian's faith so much that they wouldn't want to go there.
quote:Are you thinking of any specific atheists.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea of the glue, mentioned above, is interesting. But some atheists are trying to conceive of God as a thing, an item in the universe.
quote:Well, you. You have been talking about objective knowledge of God, but this can only be applied to empirical things or facts in the universe. For example, can I have an objective knowledge of the present moment? I doubt it, since there is no empirical way of describing the present.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Are you thinking of any specific atheists.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea of the glue, mentioned above, is interesting. But some atheists are trying to conceive of God as a thing, an item in the universe.
(When I was a child, I thought that everyone thought of God as I did, an invisible spirit with a voice.)
quote:You don't do replies with actual content, do you.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quetzalcoatl
Thank you for reply! However, you did use the phrase some atheists, so I just thought I'd ask!
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I, however, was more interested in facts.
quote:Your assessment of my motivation is incorrect, but I cannot of course stop you thinking that.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I, however, was more interested in facts.
I'm not seeing that, not at all. I fear you're just trolling here.
I do think, however, that you're enjoying the attention - and the time that all these people are putting into answering questions that can, by definition, never be answered to your satisfaction.
quote:Well, yes, on this point I think you are right! I was quite surprised to see it go on for more than a page! However, I have found it all very interesting.
Hasn't this thread run its course?
quote:That's scarcely an objective assessment.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
After many thousand of years the believers' assertions and claims are all based on subjective personal experience,and non-believers' confidence is based on a total lack of facts about any god which has ever been worshipped or believed in.
quote:Empirical evidence, or a priori evidence? If by observation, surely the evidence of God is overwhelming - hence the vast wealth of human literature to study in theology.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, you. You have been talking about objective knowledge of God, but this can only be applied to empirical things or facts in the universe. For example, can I have an objective knowledge of the present moment? I doubt it, since there is no empirical way of describing the present.
quote:If you think the evidence is so overwhelming, how do you account for the huge variety of religious beliefs and gods? Where is the one item of objective knowledge that would silence all unbelief? Every single word in every book which purports to provide information about God has been thought of and written by humans using the evolved brains we are so very, very lucky to have. As time goes on, ideas and words which were said to be of or from the 'divine' have been shown to be better explained by scientific studies of the natural world.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:Empirical evidence, or a priori evidence? If by observation, surely the evidence of God is overwhelming - hence the vast wealth of human literature to study in theology.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, you. You have been talking about objective knowledge of God, but this can only be applied to empirical things or facts in the universe. For example, can I have an objective knowledge of the present moment? I doubt it, since there is no empirical way of describing the present.
quote:No, nothing.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
May I challenge you to think of one thing that you think might have, or could only have, been affected by the God you believe in?!
quote:I started to write a comprehensive answer, but deleted it.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:If you think the evidence is so overwhelming, how do you account for the huge variety of religious beliefs and gods? Where is the one item of objective knowledge that would silence all unbelief? Every single word in every book which purports to provide information about God has been thought of and written by humans using the evolved brains we are so very, very lucky to have. As time goes on, ideas and words which were said to be of or from the 'divine' have been shown to be better explained by scientific studies of the natural world.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Empirical evidence, or a priori evidence? If by observation, surely the evidence of God is overwhelming - hence the vast wealth of human literature to study in theology.
I have lived for a long time now and there is nothing in my life which has not been a completely natural human action/experience/reaction/thought/etc. May I challenge you to think of one thing that you think might have, or could only have, been affected by the God you believe in?!
Please do not read any sarcasm into that question; there is none there. As I have said before, I profoundly dislike sarcasm having been the subject of it for some time when I was younger.
quote:I'm sorry about that, - I have partly written it, but I went to the gym this morning and then I've had the Tech chap here because I had a problem with the computer. I shall have more time tomorrow, but what I've written to you and Boogie so far is in draft form in Documents.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
But still no reply to my post.....? Hmm. I wonder why?
quote:Amen.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...Sadly, I am not convinced that you want an answer, but another opportunity to repeat the demand at the core of the above, which again demonstrates that you have not listened to the above posts: 'Where is the one item of objective knowledge that would silence all unbelief?'
There are two things wrong with this sentence.
Firstly, nothing can nor should silence all unbelief. Faith is not certainty. It is important that we wrestle with God, so that we continue to grow in our personal knowledge of God.
Secondly, your 'item of objective knowledge' cannot possibly exist as nothing anybody said would ever fit your own categorisation of 'objective knowledge' - again as repeated above. What kind of fact is a fact, to you? You have failed to answer this question. ...
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
You say there are many experiences which ‘could only have been of God’, but scientific knowledge has vastly lessened their number, and those that are still interpreted as of God are actually the don’t knows, aren’t they.
quote:Once again, I doubt that you're interested in our answers to this question.
SusanDoris: How can you wrestle with something which is, apart from being a collection of three letters, a human idea , lacking facts?
quote:Thank you, Barnabas, for allowing me to reply.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Raptor Eye
Sorry for the delay, but herewith my reply. I have spent quite a bit of time on it and, whatever you think of it, thank you for the thinking involved!
Thank you for your post. You think that my posts indicate I have not listened to what others say. This is not so. I read all posts thoroughly. If I was not interested in the responses, then I would not be here!
It is not a case of looking for an opportunity to repeat the demand as you call it, but can you see where the OP question has been directly answered? That is, where what theologians actually know about God has been said? I think it is reasonable to say that such a thing should be true for all, not just true for the individual or particular group. Obvious example – gravity is true for all!
You say that nothing should silence unbelief. That goes for belief too, and it is right that we should have the freedom to believe what we want. However, faith in something for which there are only personal experiences and ideas, and which does not stand up to any factual objective knowledge certainly needs a very critical look
Before being taught as truth to the young I think. Teach about it, most definitely,.
How can you wrestle with something which is, apart from being a collection of three letters, a human idea , lacking facts? Obviously, one of the reasons for our species’ successful survival has been the ability to think an infinite variety of impossible things, wrestle with them and sort them out.
You speak of ‘growing in knowledge’ but I think I would interpret that as growing in understanding of your own and others’experiences and, therefore, in knowledge of what and how people believe. I do not see how it can be knowledge of a God when not one fact about it can be produced by anyone, let alone theologians. Should all people of faith wrestle with the god or gods they believe in? Are theirs the wrong ones? How would you know?
I do not have a personal categorisation of objectivity. There are enough clear definitions available. Nothing of course is absolutely proven since all such facts must be open to challenge, correction and improvement.
You say there are many experiences which ‘could only have been of God’, but scientific knowledge has vastly lessened their number, and those that are still interpreted as of God are actually the don’t knows, aren’t they.
quote:Yes, I think that is a very good idea!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Code edited.
SusanDoris, there is a general Hostly view that this thread is going around in mutually unsatisfactory and repetitive circles. We've given it a good run and we'll allow a bit of time for the latest exchanges with Raptor Eye to work through. After that it seems wise to us to recognise that the thread has reached its sell-by date and close it.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
