• 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
At wor
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:

At work trying to avoid banana reasoning
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.


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.
Oh its arguing who is better at air guitar!!!! Like I said it's nonsensical.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.
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.

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.
There is only a single cranium. So to say some overlap is to imply what? That hand is so. E what related to the arm?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The issue in science is related to studies not being reproducible which I think is related to having too broad a definition of the standard confidence interval. I've read a proposal that it needs to be .5% not 5%. This is an issue in only certain branches of science, specifically medicine.

The issue in theology is quite different. There people speculate on the meaning of various scriptures and try to make sense because all of them are to some degree contradictory/not internally consistent to start with.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think we are bumping into the overly dominate cultural view the ancients called sophism, that we today call sophisticated. If two sophists argue which one is correct? Interestingly most of the responses are here in this thread sophism. Not yours, I think we are gaining socrates 2400 years later. At least some are. It's also interesting how plato went from socrates to being sophism over time exactly like Christianity. Literacy is a funny funny painting process of culture to say the least.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think we are bumping into the overly dominate cultural view the ancients called sophism, that we today call sophisticated. If two sophists argue which one is correct? Interestingly most of the responses are here in this thread sophism. Not yours, I think we are gaining socrates 2400 years later. At least some are. It's also interesting how plato went from socrates to being sophism over time exactly like Christianity. Literacy is a funny funny painting process of culture to say the least.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Oh its arguing who is better at air guitar!!!! Like I said it's nonsensical.
Not necessarily. It's a form of 'peer review', just as with scientists. And there is certainly a need for it, I would say, to help them keep themselves honest.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.
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.

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.
No not everyone. I once asked a pastor about a verse from a song by nitty gritty dirt band will the circle be under broken". Awesome song BTW, got me an arch top guitar because mother maybelle carter played one. Anyway, in the song they sing "there's a better home awaiting in the sky lord in the sky." so I asked the pastor was it sky lord or sky, lord, in the sky. That's theology right there in what I was doing.does that actually have any relationship to the song?
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.
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.

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.
First I want to make sure you don't think I am saying that theologians have no integrity. I have a degree in theology and it is a collection of high integrity a degree very smart folks with exceptions like myself. When
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.
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.

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.
First I agree with Chester's on we are stuck with theology until something better come. It has a definite roll in the community of faith I am most certainly not convinced that it's primacy is healthy or realistic. I have followed another new disapline called ecopsychology and it's facinating how over 30 years its morphed. I equate it to painting. One e person paints the landscape, the next generation then paints a painting of the landscape, and over multiple generations the painting becomes objective and the actual landscape becomes subjective to the paintings. Our multiple generational body of work tends to shift our perceptions s away from the topic, the la dscape, towards an Intellectualized framework about the landscape.i understand the landscape as objective, the cranium subjective and that's not a belief at all. Belief which is bedrock to theory, hypothesis, speculation, gives rise to easily to sophism which RF is a good example of. Reality can become a set of ideas and ideas then become God, that's false. I like to say I am a naturist, not a naturalist. Naturalism has been coopted into a philosophical term antagonistic to super naturalism. I almost certainly am not a super naturalist, it's historically, completely antagonistic to nature. I find deep this antagonistic duality in culture in religion in science in accedemics a serious problem and its normal. There is no such thing as super naturalism, or a Controling force outside nature, there is no such thing as laws rules regulations or ideas that control nature. Nature is big we are little, God is big we are little, the cosmos. Is is big we are little. That's good science and good religion. It's not something understood very well and it's not even on theologies radar. All things work together, so I might point to to a problem but that problem is a part of a deeper narrative as well which is paradoxical.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What were we talking about again?
Making a point that it has nothing to do with the substance of actual ideas, but about who the bigger and best kid on the block.... muscle flexing for the sake of ego, claiming one's religious beliefs are 'better than yours'.
 

Sanzbir

Well-Known Member
Well even if you believe religion is all fake and delusional isn't there a value in studying it??

Take psychology and how it studies mental illnesses. The outlook of those with mental illnesses is often quite obviously delusional but we still value studying that.

So whether you think religions are valid or invalid, it should have value in the study either way.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The problem both it take on its own internal reality. Although the reality of theology seems more jackson pollack and science more kodak. Both trend more towards sophism without interest deducted deceit in either domain all which I would call "normal".
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well even if you believe religion is all fake and delusional isn't there a value in studying it??

Take psychology and how it studies mental illnesses. The outlook of those with mental illnesses is often quite obviously delusional but we still value studying that.

So whether you think religions are valid or invalid, it should have value in the study either way.
Interesting that you brought up psychology. The study of the psyche. To study, is interesting in and of itself. We should do a study of studies, then a study of studies studying studies. when one sees a repetitive like that we can "believe" it's a confused statement by a confused individual, because it is not understood by the listener and the one making the statement is confused, in this case me!!! Am I actually confused, because it is not easily digestible? If it doesn't fit the listeners perceptions is that my problem?

The term Alma mater is interesting in its morphology. Originally it meant nurturing mother, fertility of the fields. It was applied to mother mary herself she was the nurturing mother of the faith. Over time Alma mater became a term applied to university, the nurturing mother of studies. She gave birth to her children the scientific enterprise whose life and existence has been how to figure out how to put that ***** mother nature in her proper place. They now complain if people only recognised that global warming was happening we could put into place better science to fix the problems science created. Literacy is interesting, I want to start a program, call it scholar-ology. We would study scholars, create our own disapline, our own language, give out phds to those who best utilised and created new words, teach future scholarologists how to properly study those who study and teach. We would not be drug into the nonsense of scholarship we would be objective and they would be subjective to us. It's what they love to do to everyone else I say let's do it to them. We can start with psychology and branch out till eventually the Alma mater means she who studies studies studying studies ad infinitum !!! A bit of Latin makes it sound all legit somehow!!!
 

Sanzbir

Well-Known Member
Interesting that you brought up psychology. The study of the psyche. To study, is interesting in and of itself. We should do a study of studies, then a study of studies studying studies. when one sees a repetitive like that we can "believe" it's a confused statement by a confused individual, because it is not understood by the listener and the one making the statement is confused, in this case me!!! Am I actually confused, because it is not easily digestible? If it doesn't fit the listeners perceptions is that my problem?

The term Alma mater is interesting in its morphology. Originally it meant nurturing mother, fertility of the fields. It was applied to mother mary herself she was the nurturing mother of the faith. Over time Alma mater became a term applied to university, the nurturing mother of studies. She gave birth to her children the scientific enterprise whose life and existence has been how to figure out how to put that ***** mother nature in her proper place. They now complain if people only recognised that global warming was happening we could put into place better science to fix the problems science created. Literacy is interesting, I want to start a program, call it scholar-ology. We would study scholars, create our own disapline, our own language, give out phds to those who best utilised and created new words, teach future scholarologists how to properly study those who study and teach. We would not be drug into the nonsense of scholarship we would be objective and they would be subjective to us. It's what they love to do to everyone else I say let's do it to them. We can start with psychology and branch out till eventually the Alma mater means she who studies studies studying studies ad infinitum !!! A bit of Latin makes it sound all legit somehow!!!

This is a terrible idea because of this one idea here:

We would not be drug into the nonsense of scholarship we would be objective and they would be subjective to us

That's a pipe dream. No one is objective. But plenty of people think their own subjectivity is objective. All your idea would do is codify the subjective viewpoint of a group of people into an unquestionable dogma.
 
Top