|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What do Theologians know?
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Thank you- I have been trying to make that clear all along! 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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
So I'm too logical to be an atheist?
You wouldn't be the first.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglicano
Shipmate
# 18476
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You neglect the fact that "study" in the Atheictionary means "study via the scientific method."
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.
Two other things that rattle them: the atheist regimes in the former Soviet block; and the fact that many scientists are theists.
Posts: 61 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.*
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.
For me, whilst arguably a worthwhile thing, a non-believer studying how believers understand theology (and possibly why they are wrong to do so) is not the study of theology.
Anyway, my main point is that there is a lot of value in studying philosophy, theology... and also economics, politics etc (which I'd not describe as STEM, although I was having an argument last week with someone who was insisting Political Science was a STEM subject) along with physical and theoretical science and mathematics.
I don't see that we have to rank these things into the categories of "useful" and "useless".
*and even taking into account what has been said above about the "philosophy of science", I still think it is a different thing than the study of abstract ideas.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Spot on. mr cheesy.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Anglicano: Two other things that rattle them: the atheist regimes in the former Soviet block; and the fact that many scientists are theists.
It isn't my aim to rattle Atheists.
(PS SusanDoris sent an email to the vicar where she lives and she got an answer the next day? Wow.)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(PS SusanDoris sent an email to the vicar where she lives and she got an answer the next day? Wow.)
I see the ![[Smile]](smile.gif) 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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
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.
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.
Perhaps a better term to use would've been empirically or objectively.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SusanDoris: I see the 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.
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglicano
Shipmate
# 18476
|
Posted
quote:
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!
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.
[fixed UBB code]
[ 02. October 2015, 05:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 61 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
Perhaps a better term to use would've been empirically or objectively.
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."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Thank you for your reply. I should imagine it was the novelty of the question that intrigued him!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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?
[ 02. October 2015, 06:54: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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."
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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?
That's an interesting point, I hadn't heard that.
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. Given natural biases and a shortage of information, it is impossible to even imagine a history getting to the definitive truth about almost anything, never mind something which happened centuries ago, with limited written records etc.
Of course, science also has a certain level of uncertainty (sometimes not properly understood or articulated by scientists), but surely the difference is that it is at least assuming that there is a truth to get to and that more refined observation, thought and experimentation will get closer to it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is it only knowledge if it is absolutely secure?
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Well that's true, but graphene may present significant risks to the environment.
So, in fact, we don't even know yet what we don't know about graphene. It might be a disaster.
quote:
Historical knowledge is fit for purpose if it gives us a sense of where we have come from.
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?
Hence I'm not sure we can all agree with your statement on what history's purpose is.
quote:
Philosophical knowledge is fir for purpose if it makes us think.
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.
quote:
Theological knowledge is fit for purpose if .... I don't know - do you?
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Here is the post I made.
No one commented either way.
It is quite hard to comment on your post when it compares something many here hold as important to a whim or superstition.
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?
[ 02. October 2015, 07:56: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Tell that to artists who give their life to it!
quote:
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?
When did I say that?
I believe in God - I just feel I know nothing about God any more.
I said it's all subjective, I did not say it is all humbug.
I like SusanDoris's question because it goes to the heart of what I have been wondering myself.
Maybe I chose graphene as a poor example - I was looking for a recent innovation. But let's say flight then. The science and engineering which goes into flight works. It's not great for the environment but it works incredibly well.
In what way does art 'work'? What purpose does it have? We can only see subjective views of art - numbers of people who agree it is good (And I speak as a painter)
Theology is the same, is it not?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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".
Your question has been answered a couple of times on this thread already.
For us believers, putting various concepts people have about God in some kind of coherent framework is obviously helpful.
For believers and non-believers alike, studying these concepts is useful, because whether they like it or not, billions have believed and still believe in these concepts, and this has an impact on society.
Take Michelangelo's David. Science can study the materials and tools that he used, the techniques that he applied. Art Studies can analyse how the esthetics he used for the statue fit in the evolution of artistic thinking at the time. (This can be done objectively.)
But if you look at the statue only from a scientific or an artistic point of view, you're still missing something.
Theology can answer questions like: why did he choose David as a subject. What importance did this figure have for Christians at the time? What did he want to express by choosing him as a subject? How does this fit in medieval religious thinking?
It can answer these questions objectively, whether the figure of David has actually existed or not (I personally think he hasn't.)
Honestly, I don't see why this is so difficult to get. Cue: but what fact do theologians know about God?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Honestly, I don't see why this is so difficult to get.
Me neither.
A belated answer to an earlier question. Before I became a Host I posted on a number of different websites, but these days I just don't have the time for it. Nor do I wish to put my wife's patience further to the test. There is this thing called Real Life ....
A more serious answer; I read extensively and my reading has included books by Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (who I reckon is a much better read that Dawkins anyway). 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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
Of course, the mechanically minded will say, oh, but we do know how the brain behaves when you are feeling love, and this is real knowing.
This is completely dehumanized. As others have said, if I were to say to my wife, my brain is currently going through these processes, when I look at you, that would be inhuman and possibly insane. Science as a faith is that mad.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
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.
As LeRoc and mr cheesy have said, I think both theology and art are a lot closer to philosophy than you allow.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
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.
Thank you for your reply. I should imagine it was the novelty of the question that intrigued him!
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I would certainly agree that historical knowledge is different again, although I think they all turn into each other around the edges.
Some historians aren't terribly engaging unless you like statistics for numbers of houses in medieval villages and that kind of thing or bishops in medieval central Europe with Frankish and non-Frankish names.
I think there's a distinction to be had between the kind of objectivity possible in science, where you try to take your values entirely out of the equation, and the kind of objectivity possible in history or economics or philosophy, where you try to put your values up for inspection and be open to correction from people with other values.
There's a sense in which politicians are never going to be objective. But they can still be more or less open to evidence that their favoured policies don't work.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
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.
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".
Your question has been answered a couple of times on this thread already.
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.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Believe me, my answer was couched in terms relevant to this particular town and the Vicar's congregation!
(I'm just reading through new posts at the moment - I can see there are quite a few things to respond to too.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
quote:
Ikkyu: The way I translate SusanDoris's question that began this thread is "Show me God".
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).
What SusanDoris is asking is "Why can't Theologians show me God (in an empirical way)?" The answer is: they can't because that isn't what they set out to do.
quote:
Ikkyu: But the repeated ridicule poked at the question seems to me an evasion of dealing with the actual question.
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.
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Would it help if we asked what is meant by 'know' in this context?
I thought I had made that quite clear in the OP. quote:
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?
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.
God on the other hand - and againI point out that the capital g tends to refer to the God of Christianity - has large numbers of people studying ... but actually what they are are studying always tracks back to what other people have said, thought and written about this God, all of it subjective. quote:
Is it only knowledge if it is absolutely secure?
I think that would depend on what use is being made of such insecure knowledge.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Sorry not to have put a post in but I have of course been reading all your posts with interest and thinking, 'Yeah! Good post!' in my head!!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
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.
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.
I might have had some misconceptions about
Theology at the start, but that no longer applies. quote:
Art Studies doesn't say "this painting is beautiful", just as Theology doesn't say "God exists".
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!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Excellent - delighted to hear this!!
[ 02. October 2015, 18:28: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
That's what Theology does.
[ 02. October 2015, 18:28: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
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!
Would you say that the idea/belief that God exists is personal and subjective?
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Thank you - well said, say I!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
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.
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.
That's what Theology does.
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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT!!!
I have acknowledged that at least a dozen of times already since the beginning of this thread.
I, LeRoc, hereby acknowledge that Theology doesn't know a thing about God in the empirical sense.
I, LeRoc, hereby acknowledge that Theology doesn't know a thing about God in the empirical sense.
I, LeRoc, hereby acknowledge that Theology doesn't know a thing about God in the empirical sense.
I, LeRoc, hereby acknowledge that Theology doesn't know a thing about God in the empirical sense.
I, LeRoc, hereby acknowledge that Theology doesn't know a thing about God in the empirical sense.
I, LeRoc, hereby acknowledge that Theology doesn't know a thing about God in the empirical sense.
I, LeRoc, hereby acknowledge that Theology doesn't know a thing about God in the empirical sense.
I, LeRoc, hereby acknowledge that Theology doesn't know a thing about God in the empirical sense.
I, LeRoc, hereby acknowledge that Theology doesn't know a thing about God in the empirical sense.
I, LeRoc, hereby acknowledge that Theology doesn't know a thing about God in the empirical sense.
I, LeRoc, hereby acknowledge that Theology doesn't know a thing about God in the empirical sense.
I, LeRoc, hereby acknowledge that Theology doesn't know a thing about God in the empirical sense.
I, LeRoc, hereby acknowledge that Theology doesn't know a thing about God in the empirical sense.
Can I go home now?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I don't see what being helpful to non-theists has to do with anything. Many other ways of talking about God may be helpful but it is a simple matter of fact that mainstream theology discuss engagement with God and sets out to describe and discusses God's nature but does not question God's existence. Different discussion different audience.
What the purple flying wilberries is so dreadful about that??????
[ 02. October 2015, 18:54: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
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!
Would you say that the idea/belief that God exists is personal and subjective?
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. quote:
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.
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 know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Would it help if we asked what is meant by 'know' in this context?
I thought I had made that quite clear in the OP.
I've just reread the OP. I can't see where you make what you mean by 'know' quite clear.
quote:
quote:
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?
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.
It's not a comparison. I'm asking where the boundaries of the word 'know' lie.
quote:
quote:
Is it only knowledge if it is absolutely secure?
I think that would depend on what use is being made of such insecure knowledge.
That's a sort of reverse Pascal's wager.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Sorry, I entered this thread very late I did not want to annoy.
I agree that several people in the thread have answered the "what do Theologians do" question extremely well. (And repeatedly). 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".
On the other hand an answer like Boogie's actually brings me closer to what "God" might be if she existed.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
LOL, I have a rather vivid imagination. I know imagine the following scene.
Somewhere, in a smallish room in a university, someone holds a lecture about the minotaur. She shows some slides of things that can be touched and seen, such as this beautiful statue, excerpts of texts, some modern concepts. She explains how these concepts relate to each other, how the image has evolved over time, what influence it has had on culture at different times ...
It is a good lecture, and there's a lot of applause at the end. Then a lady in the back row (rather handsomely dressed) raises her finger and asks: "But what fact do you know about the minataur? Can you even prove that it existed?" She feels very smart, thinking that she has asked an extremely provocative question that no-one has ever thought about.
The rest of the audience enters an embarrassed silence. The lecturer however, responds politely that of course, we don't have an empirical fact about the minotaur. She doesn't pretend that she has. We do have a lot of knowledge about the minotaur as a concept, and that can be studied objectively. We know what a minotaur is not. If we want to, we can deduce a couple of things about the minotaur, even if it doesn't exist. And though we don't have empirical facts about it, we do have cultural facts. There exist different kinds of fact, and of knowledge. And it is important to study these facts, because the concept of the minotaur has an influence on art, on culture, at some moments even on wider society.
The lady just repeats "But what fact do you know about the minotaur?" even if the lecturer gives this explanation, in different ways, a number of times. After the lady has said "But what fact do you know about the minotaur?" a couple of times more, the lecturer sighs in despair "Are you even listening to what I'm saying?" The lady replies: "You're so unfair!"
People in the room are getting more and more embarrassed. The lady sees this as evidence that "See? They're avoiding the question. It's the big elephant in the room. Their embarrassement is proof that I've really hit home with my provocative question."
SusanDoris, to you, God is the same as the minotaur. It's just a human invention. It is absolutely fine for you to believe that.
But the concept of the minotaur, although we have no empirical evidence of the minotaur itself, can be studied. And it is useful to study it. The fact that the minotaur doesn't exist doesn't change that.
Likewise the concept of God, although we have no empirial evidence of God itself, can be studied. And it is useful to study it. You believe that God doesn't exist; that doesn't change that.
Of course, the difference is that many people believe that God does exist. (No, they don't do that because they have empirical evidence of God, but they do.) That makes it more important to study the concept of God than that of the minotaur, not less. Because more texts have been written about God, there are more concepts about Him, many times in conflict with each other, because concepts of God had a much bigger influence on society.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Ikkyu: Its just that the description of what they do describes something that seems pretty useless if what you are interested in is "God".
Yes and no.
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. But of course, the knowledge generated by these studies will be used differently by believers and by non-believers.
For example, at the beginning of this thread I referred to the Oxford Journal of Theological Studies. The current issue contains an article about how the story of Jesus's entry into Jerusalem (the one we celebrate on Palm Sunday) relates to earlier Jewish texts and concepts.
For a non-believer this study can be useful, because relating these concepts to each other tells us more about ancient Jewish culture. That is interesting by itself. It also gives more insight in a feast that millions of Christians are celebrating each year.
It is important to study these things, even if Theologians know no fact about God (sorry, can't help it )
But for me, as a believer, this study has an added significance. It tells me more about Jesus (or at least about the people who have written about Him) within a Jewish context. That is important for my faith and I feel that this brings me closer to Him.
Of course, now I'm no longer in the realm of academic objectivity. At this point, I'm applying the academic research (which is objective) to my faith (which isn't objective).
But to answer your question: yes, theological research like this is relevant to me, exactly because I'm interested in God.
quote:
Ikkyu: On the other hand an answer like Boogie's actually brings me closer to what "God" might be if she existed.
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.
Having a conversation with someone who is also unsure about God is much more helpful. Of course it is.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
snip
About the rest of the post your point was very clear I wish I could write like that.
quote:
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.
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.
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:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Having a conversation with someone who is also unsure about God is much more helpful. Of course it is.
I agree. I think its also helpful for those who are too certain about God.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Was it Kant who philosophically disproved empiricism?
If I remember correctly from university philosophy, Kant argued that we can't prove anything "objectively" because the mind itself constructs a reality out of the information it given. So one cannot "prove empirically" the existence of God on the basis that nothing itself can be proved empirically on an objective way.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Are you having a bad day?
Is this in hell? I missed the move notice.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Theology and theologists do not, however, know one thing about God unless they could show such a thing exists.
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Ontological Argument
Something to think about Susan.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
