A Critique of Theological Thinking

This, at least in Italy, do not fall under the domain of Theology, but fall under the domain of History, Sociology, Architecture, Archaeology...and so on... just APPLIED o INSPIRED from religion (Schleimann did it with Omero's Iliad, someone did it with the bible...).

Theology is philsophy related to religion, and it is not a science, in the same way that many philosophical branches aren't scientifical at all. That doesn't mean that isn't rigorous or motivated (even scientifically motivated, e.g. taking notice of scientifical analysis, historical facts and archeological findings), just means that the tools used are not scientifical but philosophical...

 

All scientific tools are philosophical tools. As pig once said: There's a reason that advanced degrees are philosophy doctorates. It's impossible to even begin to interpret data without making philosophical assumptions. This is as true in physics as it is in psychology.

 

Granted, science is reliant upon philosophy at some stage but I don't think it works in the reverse. Or does it? Maybe so, if philosophy stays abreast of scientific advancements and adjusts the conversation accordingly. Theology, as a branch of philosophy doesn't appear to do that.

 

The reason that they are PhDs is historical (everything was considered philosophy except law, medicine and, interestingly, theology at one time).

I would agree that it is impossible to intepret data without making philosophical assumptions. I would go furher and say that it is impossible to interpret life without making philosophical assumptions. That is the nature of philosophy.

There is also a philosophy of science. I'm not sure there is a science of philosophy, though. Maybe it all comes down to the definition of "science" (and of "philosophy").

To be clear, I don't see that declaring a study to be a science elevates it in any way above something which is not a science (nor am I suggesting that anyone here is claiming that).

I also think that there is reasonable debate that could be had over whether the distinction is of any importance. Maybe Karl Popper would be a good source to begin with.

 

Or even cultural

 

wait. what was scholasticism if not a method?

 

I think that anything that teaches people how to think and communicate is useful.

I'm not clear how "theological thinking" is different from "thinking".

I am curious as to whether there will come a time when we see more convergence of theology and the "hard" sciences in their studies of the nature of reality. Perhaps we will never be able to truly perceive/experience the reality that we are part of due to our need to maintain a "self" from which to observe it.

P.S. I see "science" as something more specific than "a systematized approach to knowledge" but I agree that we don't need to argue definitions. So, I am leaving that semantic argument alone and moving on.

 

There's a serious difference between "science" and the "scientific method". One is the basis and the other is the most accepted practice of the former. It is entirely possible to be a scientist who arrives at the "right answer" without using the scientific method - see: the Greeks and Chinese who either theorized or invented much of the basis for where we are today.

That said, any good scientist will tell you that there is no proof of God with the huge caveat that this is only by the methods we have available at the moment. This is not the same as disproving that there is a God (or gods for that matter).

I always find it interesting when evangelical atheists wander in and are shocked that I don't immediately buy into their worldview. It's exactly like the shock that evangelical Christians have under the same circumstances.

 

Unless theology revisits and reanalyzes held beliefs in light of new data, there remains a fairly large distinction between it's systematic approach and the approach science takes. What discipline of science flatly adheres to hypotheses and theories once contradictory evidence is presented?

Unless you are only arguing that, up to the point where a reevaluation is required, the process is similar.

 

Yes, indeed!

I even have a difficulty with the concept of "God", as if the term is clear and understood in the same way by all who use it. For example, could the ideas of the Dao/Tao and God be used interchangeably by some people? Not by those who consider God a sentient being, maybe - but for others it would be OK.

In any event, it is neither provable or disprovable. I would suggest that most of us live with working assumptions - but that is all they are.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you as much as I am trying to understand where you're coming from on this. Are you trying to put theology on, if not equal footing with science, then at least in the same ballpark by reason of the fact that the systematic approach to the development of religious ideas is comparable to the scientific approach to the development of hypotheses and theories?

I don't dispute this really but I think the comparison ends there, with the possible exception of the more open minded religions such as Buddhism and Taoism. Theologically speaking, religions that are less dogmatic and have the advantage of being designed around broader philosophical concepts are less likely to butt heads with science. In fact, they're well suited to a more harmonic marriage with science.

But when it comes to contemporary Christianity, which I agree has evolved considerably from the Christianity of the Middle Ages, I don't agree that it's evolved through any sort of systematic approach. At least not an approach towards keeping pace with new information that might require the revision of it's basic tenets. In my opinion, it's merely adapted itself as necessary to survive and remain relevant. Rather than accept new ideas, it shuffles around old ones.

Where some theological thinking may still take a systematic approach in the evolution of religious ideas, a good many religions are only putting new bindings on old books.

Then again, I'm not entirely sure we're not talking at cross purposes here, Baraka.

 

Understandable. However, other than omega, I'm not clear that anyone was saying that theology isn't worth discussing because it is or isn't a science.

The question of whether it has value is a different question altogether, at least in my opinion. I think I have already stated that I think it does.

 

I'm fully on board with using the term "science" to refer to the study of anything worth studying. The science of being a good parent, the science of effective toe-nail clipping, the science of religious paradox.

So yeah, I think I get your point now. That being, it becomes difficult to discuss one area of study vs another when one is expected to automatically negate the other due to little more than differences in methods and goals.