|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 30, 2014 14:00:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 30, 2014 14:04:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 30, 2014 15:22:23 GMT -6
The greater harm is when theologians pretend to be scientists.
Why shouldn't scientists dip into metaphysics? It's not like theologians have racked up major discoveries, but like one of tne authors said - good luck with that.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Mar 30, 2014 15:34:00 GMT -6
The problem, both sides agree, is that science can only describe what is. What the hell is the matter with that? Theology often palpably describes what isn't or what is wished for. Write a novel, for Pete's sake.
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 2, 2014 21:08:31 GMT -6
The greater harm is when theologians pretend to be scientists. Why shouldn't scientists dip into metaphysics? It's not like theologians have racked up major discoveries, but like one of tne authors said - good luck with that. Oh dear. Oh dear. I can name hundreds of theologians who have contributed solid scientific discoveries to our store of knowledge. You can't name one atheist scientist who has contributed anything to theology. Of course, it doesn't help that you don't seem to know what theology is (hint. Academic subjects encompassing history, culture, languages, literature, history of doctrines, archaeology, papyrology and many more ologies than you are likely to have heard of.) I don't think the name of the man who proposed Big Bang first can have escaped you, can it? Georges LeMaitre? Make that Monsignor Georges LeMaitre, priest, professor and physicist. How about Max Planck? You know, Quantum mechanics? The lists that can be found online defy quick reading. You can start here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science#Physics_and_AstronomyThen if you want more you can follow the links provided, for instance: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientistsen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_in_scienceen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_philosophersOrdained Anglican scientists! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Ordained_ScientistsAnd there are many more. Say to yourself every day upon waking, "the limits of my knowledge, are not the limits of what there is to know." It is important that you do this, otherwise you risk looking like a first class doofus like Richard Dawkins who is a figure of derision among those who understand philosophy and history when he pontificates on those subjects. In fact, so egregious is his ignorance and so widely known that you will actually hear people say at conferences of someone who reads a poor paper or says something stupid, "what a Dick". Strive to avoid that fate!
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 2, 2014 22:00:36 GMT -6
Historian,
Welcome. I have only read one book by Dawkins (The Selfish Gene). While I believe it to be a good representation of natural selection to non-scientific audiences,1 I agree that he comes off as a polemicist when he goes off on anti-religious tangents. He should have just pursued his thesis.
Regarding your larger point, I doubt Steve is going to lose much sleep over the lack of atheist/scientists to theology. I certainly don't. Further, while it is undeniable that Christians have made and continued to make significant contributions to science, it's a bit of a stretch to call Max Planck a theologian. LeMaitre, perhaps, but I think it would be more correct to call him a Jesuit scientist. I don't think it is good semantics to consider the taking of orders as equivalent to being a theologian, but perhaps I am ignorant of academic contributions on his part beyond his pioneering work in astronomy and physics.
Stick around. It could be fun.
FB
1 Well, sort of. I have a background in biology and medicine. I suspect that some laypersons might still find this work incomprehensible.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 2, 2014 22:15:02 GMT -6
You're right, Historian, I shouldn't have made such a broad statement. There are Christian fundamentalists pretending to be scientists, though, of which I'm sure you are well aware.
Philosophers..................well, don't get me started on those losers.
As far as atheists' contributions to theology are concerned, thank god those sorts of things never happen.
|
|
|
Post by historian on Apr 2, 2014 22:26:01 GMT -6
The point I am trying to make is that some of you are misusing the word theologian/theology. Those words describe an academic subject (of the many that make up everything that goes into theology and the study of comparative religions) or a course of studies that leads to ordination or pastoral work. In either case it is a rigorous course of studies that leads to a Ph.D is languages and subjects most of us do not know. Yet, if it were not for their work, we would not know a 10th of what we know about the past.
I know of no theologians who pretend to be scientists. As far as fundies are concerned, they are not pretending to be scientists. Some of them are. They just appear to have allowed their allegiance to a literal reading of the Bible to trump following the evidence where it leads.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 2, 2014 23:57:57 GMT -6
One could also say that if theologians of the past weren't the most biased, influential, and unfortunately the most learned people of their times, we'd have 100x better understanding of our history.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 3, 2014 1:03:06 GMT -6
As far as fundies are concerned, they are not pretending to be scientists. Some of them are. They just appear to have allowed their allegiance to a literal reading of the Bible to trump following the evidence where it leads. ...which isn't what science does, strictly speaking. Fundamentalism is a conclusion seeking evidence. The YEC and ID movements are ample reminder of this.
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 3, 2014 10:07:52 GMT -6
One could also say that if theologians of the past weren't the most biased, influential, and unfortunately the most learned people of their times, we'd have 100x better understanding of our history. That is nonsense. You can prove it to yourself and to us by giving an example that demonstrates that the bias of theologians of the past has somehow led to a misunderstanding or failure to understand our history. Then you would have to demonstrate that we still don't understand our history but we somehow know that we don't understand our history and still labor under many delusions because of those damned theologians. Whew! Good luck and God Hitchens speed. Do you have any idea how incredibly immense the scope of that claim is? We don't "understand" history now! History is always seen through the lens of the culture the historian is a member of. It is always provisional since new information turns up every day. Do you think Livy was an "accurate" historian of Rome? He wasn't a theologian. (Are you familiar with him?) How about Tacitus? How about Thucydides? Does his History of the Peloponnesian War give a 100% accurate blow-by-blow account of that war? None of them was a theologian. Are you aware that an English contemporary of Napoleon's (not a theologian) proved he never existed? Or, let's get really modern. Is Vincent Bugliosi's Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy really the definitive account of the assassination? If so, why do hundreds of books continue to be written in every decade, including this one, all claiming to finally tell the definitive story? When you woke up this morning, you forgot to chant, "The limits of my knowledge are not the limits of what there is to know" didn't you? It really is helpful when we remember that we all make claims about things we know nothing about. We derive so much of what we think we know from the culture around us. For us that is bad Hollywood and bad fiction. That is fairly normal in everyday conversation. But when we are really trying to examine a subject and get at some truths about it, it is necessary that we stick to the facts. If we don't know them we should not make them up. There are worse things than learning something new.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 3, 2014 11:07:46 GMT -6
One could also say that if theologians of the past weren't the most biased, influential, and unfortunately the most learned people of their times, we'd have 100x better understanding of our history. That is nonsense. You can prove it to yourself and to us by giving an example that demonstrates that the bias of theologians of the past has somehow led to a misunderstanding or failure to understand our history. Then you would have to demonstrate that we still don't understand our history but we somehow know that we don't understand our history and still labor under many delusions because of those damned theologians. Whew! Good luck and God Hitchens speed. Do you have any idea how incredibly immense the scope of that claim is? We don't "understand" history now! History is always seen through the lens of the culture the historian is a member of. It is always provisional since new information turns up every day. Do you think Livy was an "accurate" historian of Rome? He wasn't a theologian. (Are you familiar with him?) How about Tacitus? How about Thucydides? Does his History of the Peloponnesian War give a 100% accurate blow-by-blow account of that war? None of them was a theologian. Are you aware that an English contemporary of Napoleon's (not a theologian) proved he never existed? Or, let's get really modern. Is Vincent Bugliosi's Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy really the definitive account of the assassination? If so, why do hundreds of books continue to be written in every decade, including this one, all claiming to finally tell the definitive story? When you woke up this morning, you forgot to chant, "The limits of my knowledge are not the limits of what there is to know" didn't you? It really is helpful when we remember that we all make claims about things we know nothing about. We derive so much of what we think we know from the culture around us. For us that is bad Hollywood and bad fiction. That is fairly normal in everyday conversation. But when we are really trying to examine a subject and get at some truths about it, it is necessary that we stick to the facts. If we don't know them we should not make them up. There are worse things than learning something new. I'd genuinely like to know why you think that theologians are responsible for the preservation of history. Before answering, I concede that monks preserved many writings from antiquity, although frankly the Arabs probably saved more. I also concede that centers of learning (which were predominantly religious), eventually universities, became islands of knowledge dotting the European landscape. That said, no such bird as unbiased history exists, and theologians certainly don't have any of them in captivity. While you're at it, why don't you enumerate the claims that you personally make about things you know nothing about.
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 3, 2014 12:48:09 GMT -6
I'd genuinely like to know why you think that theologians are responsible for the preservation of history. Before answering, I concede that monks preserved many writings from antiquity, although frankly the Arabs probably saved more. I also concede that centers of learning (which were predominantly religious), eventually universities, became islands of knowledge dotting the European landscape. That said, no such bird as unbiased history exists, and theologians certainly don't have any of them in captivity.
While you're at it, why don't you enumerate the claims that you personally make about things you know nothing about.[/quote]
I'd like to know why you think I think that theologians are responsible for the preservation of history. Nothing I said could lead one to such a conclusion.
No the Arabs did not save more writings from antiquity than did the West. The Jews and Christians who lived in Arab lands did most of that.
Why are you repeating what I just said? Did I not say that *history* is always biased? I just said it more elegantly. Honestly, it gives me no pleasure to have to repeat myself. If you will not read me with a minimum of care, why should I bother to respond at all? It isn't the act of typing that gives me pleasure; it is discussion. If we aren't going to arrive at that place, there is no point in being on any "discussion" forum for me.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 3, 2014 14:42:28 GMT -6
I suppose it's up to you to decide if there is any point in the discussion for you. If there is, I'd love to see you bring evidence to bear on your claim regarding Jews and Christians in Arab lands. It sounds like one of those claims you say that everyone makes concerning things they know nothing about. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Meanwhile: Steve--I like your theory about our guest posters. It makes more and more sense each time.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Apr 3, 2014 16:26:22 GMT -6
Who is ignorant or naive enough to consider a book by Vincent Bugliosi anything but amusing for those who enjoy his popularized opinion pieces? "A definitive account" LOL Well, yes, I'm sure his blurb writers are quick to say so. Thanks for giving me a giggle almost equal to the one I got from the suggestion that an atheist who's made a notable contribution to theology can be named. (Hans Küng, maybe? hee hee)
|
|