• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Theology just religions version of junk science?

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I read a very interesting article on the issues of junk science.

Does the Crisis in Science Show That It Is Broken, or Self-Correcting?

What's interesting, all of the issues that contemporary science face is consistent with what theology is all about. I have a rather unfavorable view of theology which is university based and question its validity at every turn. Is what we see on religious forums generally just junk parading as reasoning? This question Cuts both ways in context to religion and science. It's an interesting aspect of our thinking processes that puts the two in conflict and mutual agreement at the same time. Like a conflicted individual with with what appears to be two divergent realities, yet symbiotic. Any thoughts on junk religion?
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
" I have a rather unfavorable view of theology which is university based and question its validity at every turn."

University based teaching concerning theology is heavily biased against it in the USA. It shouldn't be, in my opinion, but it is.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I read a very interesting article on the issues of junk science.

Does the Crisis in Science Show That It Is Broken, or Self-Correcting?

What's interesting, all of the issues that contemporary science face is consistent with what theology is all about. I have a rather unfavorable view of theology which is university based and question its validity at every turn. Is what we see on religious forums generally just junk parading as reasoning? This question Cuts both ways in context to religion and science. It's an interesting aspect of our thinking processes that puts the two in conflict and mutual agreement at the same time. Like a conflicted individual with with what appears to be two divergent realities, yet symbiotic. Any thoughts on junk religion?

Until the 17th and 18th century, Science and Religion were not separate. It was only at the end of the 19th Century that the idea of a conflict between Science and Religion became widespread. The conflict thesis has been pushed back as a very selective view of the history of science and religion by focusing on Darwin and Galileo. In so far Religion and Science both seek truth and knowledge there is a degree of compatibility between them, but that is not a view of fundamentalists on both sides of the debate.

I think the way in which we simply accept ideas about Truth and Knowledge from either Science or Religion often does lead to a kind of "junk" on religious forums. If we were more able or willing to accept not everyone agrees on the same definition of truth or method of having knowledge, discussions might be easier because we could understand that there is no one definition of truth, knowledge, logic, etc that everyone accepts. It is a pretty demanding thing to do though but it might help.

I don't believe all methods have equal value though as I favour science over religion, but when science loses sight of its historical roots in philosophy and religion, it makes the sectarian debate over faith versus facts a lot more intense. when we take the ideas of the scientific method as self-evident, we pull our hair out wondering how on earth someone can sincerely believe this:

 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
David must have aced those research papers in school.

In the body of the research paper: "I'm not going to list all the evidence that back up my claims. You, the teacher, need to do the research yourself."

This isn't school. Now you list every university that has no bias.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
I see, you call anyone who calls you out on your stuff as "adolescent". That's sounds to me rather adolescent itself, don't you think? Call others what you see yourself as, but refuse to acknowledge? In psychological terms that's called projection.

How can you see when you're blind?
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
What's interesting, all of the issues that contemporary science face is consistent with what theology is all about.
You really raise two questions. One is what is happening in science, and the other is what is happening in religion. There is probably some overlap.
I have a rather unfavorable view of theology which is university based and question its validity at every turn.
Theology is an oft misunderstood term. We get posters posting all sorts of things in the Theology section of this site and move threads out just about every month. Its not a self defining term that sounds like what it means. Here is what I think: Its based on philosophical thought, usually Western but can include other systems. Anything that is a reasoned attempt to explain existence and our relationship to the world is philosophical and borders on or overlaps theology. You state your position based upon an established, well understood system. There must be a commonly understood system to your reasoning, much like there are games with rules. A philosopher states what rules are being used and provides a well defined and interesting path for others to follow, though that path may have various unexplored options. Logic is a course in Philosophy. Rhetoric is another, which while it may sound like a public speaking class is also a thinking class; and a thinking class is part of a theological education. Based on this I have no problem with universities having Divinity schools provided they are doing students the service of teaching them logical thought and reasoning along with History. Seminaries are often a lot less stringent and eat the students like bread. You can buy a seminary degree from Kenneth Hagin, but its fake. The difference is people will take your fake degree seriously, but they couldn't take a fake technical certification for very long. With a technical degree you must be able to do things. With a divinity degree you can fake it for your whole career. Theology is like a technical degree in that people who know about theology can tell if you're a fake; but its unlike a technical degree in that people who don't know theology cannot tell if you are incompetent.

Is what we see on religious forums generally just junk parading as reasoning? This question Cuts both ways in context to religion and science. It's an interesting aspect of our thinking processes that puts the two in conflict and mutual agreement at the same time. Like a conflicted individual with with what appears to be two divergent realities, yet symbiotic. Any thoughts on junk religion?
I think junk religion is about being taken care of. A lot of religious comments on here seem to be junk by that standard but not all.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Theology is a subset of philosophy related to the study of our conceptions of truth and reality as they specifically relate to a "god"- centered existence.

To accuse any branch of philosophy of being "junk philosophy" is somewhat redundant, in that it's part of the philosophical endeavor to be antagonistically framed and examined by other philosophers. And the same would apply to the theological subset of philosophy.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Common sense is often wrong, in many things it's almost always wrong. That's why people in business(and things like televangelism) make huge amounts of money.

So call Stanford and ask them for the latest study.

Such generally well known things aren't worth wasting my time on.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Many things believed to be well known that are actually wrong. People who don't "waste" their time don't learn.
 
Top