Sociology, on its base level, disregards the concious level of human thought, considering people's behavior as a function more of society than of themselves.
Economics, on its base level, assumes that individuals tend to behave in a manner that is in their best interest.
re: Sociology - Well, that's because it's the study of society. Of course the emphasis is on societal function. Also, please see the Symbolic-Interaction Paradigm. This is also why we have the field of Psychology. Human beings are social creatures. That's basically what gives Sociology its credibility in my opinion.
re: Economics - Uhh... yeah? I don't really see your point here. Sure purely altruistic behaviors exist, but in general humans DO tend to act in their own best interest, just as every other living organism ever.
The point is, these are viable assumptions. They have very real, empirical evidence to support them. Theology simply does not.
What I want to know, though, is how Philosophy applies logic in a manner which theology doesn't. Theology may accept a different set of natural laws than most philosophy (namely the assumption of the existance of God, and God's omnipotance) but unless I'm mistaken, theology still functions logically within the bounds of their accepted laws.
Jesus is 100% god and 100% man. God is three and one.
NO ONE makes fun of the concept of the trinity more than I do.
But here's something for you that actually comes from hard science:
light is both a particle AND a wave.
Or how about quantum mechanics, and heisenburg uncertanty?
Or special reletivity. That is one of my favorites. The idea that at a sudden point you simply can't go any faster. That doesn't make ANY sense, if you merely look at it on the base level. It takes lots of hard work and calculation to getto that conclusion, yet most of us accept it without ever having proven it ourselves.
I'm sorry, but as long as theology follows its own consistency, it really doesn't matter whether or not it has concepts that other disciplines disagree with. There are PLENTY of conflicting things taught in universities.
Evander on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Religion, like it or not, is quite influential in the world still. I can't see how the study of it is suddenly not relevant.
You're absolutely right. But I think its far more sensible to study WHY and HOW religion influences the world, which, from what I understand, is not the main purpose of most Theology departments. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Sociology, on its base level, disregards the concious level of human thought, considering people's behavior as a function more of society than of themselves.
Economics, on its base level, assumes that individuals tend to behave in a manner that is in their best interest.
re: Sociology - Well, that's because it's the study of society. Of course the emphasis is on societal function. Also, please see the Symbolic-Interaction Paradigm. This is also why we have the field of Psychology. Human beings are social creatures. That's basically what gives Sociology its credibility in my opinion.
Except that I think we can all agree both society AND psychology have an effect on a person's behavior. Yet sociology, on its base level, seeks to explain everything without paying ANY attention to psychology. You can't just explain that away, without accepting that it's okay forother courses to disregard certain things, as long as they pay attention to what they profess to focus on, which is what people have been complaining that theology does.
re: Economics - Uhh... yeah? I don't really see your point here. Sure purely altruistic behaviors exist, but in general humans DO tend to act in their own best interest, just as every other living organism ever.
The point is, these are viable assumptions. They have very real, empirical evidence to support them. Theology simply does not.
Actually, there AREN'T any purely altruistic acts, but that is a whole other can of worms.
My point, though, was that sometimes people act AGAINST their own best interests for no particular reason. In economics, you assume consumer competance, but sometimes consumers ARE incompetant.
As I said, on higher levels, you come up with ways to deal with the flaws in the base assumptions, but so does theology too.
Evander on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Jesus is 100% god and 100% man. God is three and one.
NO ONE makes fun of the concept of the trinity more than I do.
But here's something for you that actually comes from hard science:
light is both a particle AND a wave.
Or how about quantum mechanics, and heisenburg uncertanty?
Or special reletivity. That is one of my favorites. The idea that at a sudden point you simply can't go any faster. That doesn't make ANY sense, if you merely look at it on the base level. It takes lots of hard work and calculation to get to that conclusion, yet most of us accept it without ever having proven it ourselves.
I'm sorry, but as long as theology follows its own consistency, it really doesn't matter whether or not it has concepts that other disciplines disagree with. There are PLENTY of conflicting things taught in universities.
Special relativity doesn't suffer from any logicl contradictions. There's nothing logically contradictory about the nature of the universe being such that you can't go faster than c. The only thing you mentioned which comes close to being an actual logical contradiction is the particle-wave duality, which can be non-problematically restated as light behaving both as a particle and a wave.
On the other hand, saying that Jesus is 100% god and 100% man betrays a misunderstanding of the notion of percent, or implies that god and man are not exclusive properties. God and man are pretty clearly exclusive, however, as a thing being god implies its immortality, and a thing being man implies its mortality.
You said that theology proceeds logically in the same manner as philosophy does, but with a different starting assumption about the world. This is false on two grounds. First, philosophy is generally ontologically neutral--it's considered bad form to begin from an assumption of god or not god without proceeding argument, and in areas where it's not absolutely necessary, god is not introduced into the discussion. Second, theology does proceed in accordance with strict logical reasoning, or it would have long ago collapsed under the trinity, the nature of jesus, the problem of evil, the nature of free will, and so on.
I have nothing against the study of greek mythology, or greek gods, or even unicorns.
As long as it is taught as a seperate thing. I'm an economist, and I say that if there is enough demand for it to make it worth the cost, go for it. As long as they aren't teaching about unicorns in biology class, let them do what they like.
You say that a theology department has an affect on academic integrity. This sounds to me like saying that gay marriage has an affect on the sanctity of marriage. As long as no individual is actually forced to study theology, I do not see how the existance of it poses any threat to anything else.
I do not have a problem with gay marriage thus I do not think it would affect the sanctity of marriage.
So are you saying you wouldn't have a problem with an entire department devoted to Greek mythology that acted as if the gods actually existed so they could spend time debating and ascribing qualities to them?
I think if a college separated theology into the areas that Dawkins suggested it would have more integrity than one that didn't.
What is more prestigious getting a hard science or engineering degree from a school like MIT or Purdue, or from Oral Roberts.
Even if the religious ideas didn't bleed over into the other schools, I think a college with less theology should and would be more highly regarded. (Yes I understand there are schools like Notre Dame that are very religious)
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Religion, like it or not, is quite influential in the world still. I can't see how the study of it is suddenly not relevant.
You're absolutely right. But I think its far more sensible to study WHY and HOW religion influences the world, which, from what I understand, is not the main purpose of most Theology departments. Correct me if I'm wrong.
While as far as I know the course at Oxford concentrates on the history of religion and the study of religious texts there are options to study religion in a sociological and philosophical context. The other thing to note is that there is an average intake of ~60 with a successful applicant rate of ~40%. Whilst I realise that, in the context of this thread, this probably has no bearing, it is a fairly popular course.
Sociology, on its base level, disregards the concious level of human thought, considering people's behavior as a function more of society than of themselves.
Economics, on its base level, assumes that individuals tend to behave in a manner that is in their best interest.
re: Sociology - Well, that's because it's the study of society. Of course the emphasis is on societal function. Also, please see the Symbolic-Interaction Paradigm. This is also why we have the field of Psychology. Human beings are social creatures. That's basically what gives Sociology its credibility in my opinion.
Except that I think we can all agree both society AND psychology have an effect on a person's behavior. Yet sociology, on its base level, seeks to explain everything without paying ANY attention to psychology. You can't just explain that away, without accepting that it's okay forother courses to disregard certain things, as long as they pay attention to what they profess to focus on, which is what people have been complaining that theology does.
re: Economics - Uhh... yeah? I don't really see your point here. Sure purely altruistic behaviors exist, but in general humans DO tend to act in their own best interest, just as every other living organism ever.
The point is, these are viable assumptions. They have very real, empirical evidence to support them. Theology simply does not.
Actually, there AREN'T any purely altruistic acts, but that is a whole other can of worms.
My point, though, was that sometimes people act AGAINST their own best interests for no particular reason. In economics, you assume consumer competance, but sometimes consumers ARE incompetant.
As I said, on higher levels, you come up with ways to deal with the flaws in the base assumptions, but so does theology too.
Man, what? Ok, let's apply this base assumption thing to Theology. Unless I'm wildly mistaken, Theology assumes the existence of God. There is absolutely no viable evidence to support the existence of God. There is at least SOME evidence to support the non-existence of God. You mention that these other disciplines at some point seek to fill in the gaps or flaws in whatever assumptions as you get deeper and deeper in to the material... so, at what point in the study of Theology does the discipline attempt to reconcile its own most basic flaw? As far as I know, it doesn't.
Except that I think we can all agree both society AND psychology have an effect on a person's behavior. Yet sociology, on its base level, seeks to explain everything without paying ANY attention to psychology. You can't just explain that away, without accepting that it's okay forother courses to disregard certain things, as long as they pay attention to what they profess to focus on, which is what people have been complaining that theology does.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say.
Assuming that sociology ignores everything about psychology (which I'm not sure is true), they can ignore psychology because there is entire other department devoted to it. With theology there are no other departments devoted entirely to explaining the things they ignore that are related to the subject matter of theology.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Man, what? Ok, let's apply this base assumption thing to Theology. Unless I'm wildly mistaken, Theology assumes the existence of God. There is absolutely no viable evidence to support the existence of God. There is at least SOME evidence to support the non-existence of God. You mention that these other discipline at some point seek to fill in the gaps or flaws in whatever assumptions as you get deeper and deeper in to the material... so, at what point in the study of Theology does the discipline attempt to reconcile its own flaw? As far as I know, it doesn't.
At a Bible College, yes, theology probably assumes the existence of God. One would hope though that at a more secular institution Theology would simply assume the existence of religion. I don't really see the problem with that.
Man, what? Ok, let's apply this base assumption thing to Theology. Unless I'm wildly mistaken, Theology assumes the existence of God. There is absolutely no viable evidence to support the existence of God. There is at least SOME evidence to support the non-existence of God. You mention that these other discipline at some point seek to fill in the gaps or flaws in whatever assumptions as you get deeper and deeper in to the material... so, at what point in the study of Theology does the discipline attempt to reconcile its own flaw? As far as I know, it doesn't.
At a Bible College, yes, theology probably assumes the existence of God. One would hope though that at a more secular institution Theology would simply assume the existence of religion. I don't really see the problem with that.
Um... I think we're.... agreeing? Certainly not disagreeing. The catch is "One would hope..." Yes, one would hope, but what one hopes is not always the case, which, I think, is the entire reason this tread exists in the first place.
Man, what? Ok, let's apply this base assumption thing to Theology. Unless I'm wildly mistaken, Theology assumes the existence of God. There is absolutely no viable evidence to support the existence of God. There is at least SOME evidence to support the non-existence of God. You mention that these other discipline at some point seek to fill in the gaps or flaws in whatever assumptions as you get deeper and deeper in to the material... so, at what point in the study of Theology does the discipline attempt to reconcile its own flaw? As far as I know, it doesn't.
At a Bible College, yes, theology probably assumes the existence of God. One would hope though that at a more secular institution Theology would simply assume the existence of religion. I don't really see the problem with that.
Um... I think we're.... agreeing? Certainly not disagreeing. The catch is "One would hope..." Yes, one would hope, but what one hopes is not always the case, which, I think, is the entire reason this tread exists in the first place.
Well, er, good. But Dawkins seems to claim that Theology in almost any form has no real content at all, and the idea that it can be compared with the study of "leprechauns" which, in my view, is ridiculous.
Well, it's important to note that Dawkins defined Theology as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God"
In that form, as I've argued above, he's right... there is no real content at all. I don't see how fundamentally that's any different than the study of leprechauns other than the fact that there is not by any means a significant portion of the population that really believes in leprechauns, whereas a considerable number of people do believe in God or a god. But just because a bunch of people believe it doesn't make it so.
Religion, like it or not, is quite influential in the world still. I can't see how the study of it is suddenly not relevant.
You're absolutely right. But I think its far more sensible to study WHY and HOW religion influences the world, which, from what I understand, is not the main purpose of most Theology departments. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're right. There is theology and then there is Religious study.
Religion, like it or not, is quite influential in the world still. I can't see how the study of it is suddenly not relevant.
You're absolutely right. But I think its far more sensible to study WHY and HOW religion influences the world, which, from what I understand, is not the main purpose of most Theology departments. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're right. There is theology and then there is Religious study.
Well I've always seen theology as the study of religion, and that's the definition I've been arguing from. If you guys are arguing from a different definition then I concede that, from that direction, the study of theology in a public institution is a bit suspect. However I'll leave you with:
Nevertheless, we are very much aware that present success cannot rest on past achievements. We have a very large Faculty — well over 100 tutors — and whilst some are still teaching biblical studies and ethics, others are engaged in topics as diverse as science and religion, philosophy, psychology and sociology of religion, modern theology, church history, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and Christian spirituality. Many have international reputations, and with some 350 students on different undergraduate courses, and about 180 graduates undertaking both taught and research degrees, there is scope for a great deal of diversity as well as depth of study. We have topped the list of the best Theology / Religious Studies departments in the country several times — the criteria have been based upon our teaching, our research, and the calibre of our students — and we hope you will see in the following pages that we are constantly striving to maintain our excellent standards.
Someone explained to me that theology is like what God can do for you, spirituality and such, rationalizing the ways of God and postulating as if he were real.
Religious study is more how and why including subjects such as Jonestown.
What Evander says is very interesting. I gave up psychology and started studying philosophy when my first few lectures were full of 'we know that there's no such thing as a soul or a spirit, we know human thought is purely electro-chemical' said in an incredibly smug voice. I kept sitting there thinking 'do we? do we really?'
Unfortunately, in the UK there is no legal separation of Church and State. I think there definitely should be (along with a separation of 'old inbred chinless fucks' and 'State', but I'm in a minority there, astoundingly.) Oxford getting money for what is essentially a seminary is small potatoes, since the UK has a state religion.
But I'd agree there needs to be more clarity and honesty about which classes are a study of religion and which are promoting it.
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
entering with pre-concieved notions definitely ISN'T the default.
That's not only factually incorrect, but ignorant of the scientific method (such as it is) itself.
Science explicitly comes with a number of preconcieved notions, such as the regularity of natural law across the universe, explanatory theories are preconcieved as more likely to be correct than empty unfruitful pseudo-explanations compatible with any state of affairs(see: "god did it", "invisible fairies control all behaviour in the universe", Freud's theories), and quite a few others. So, preconcieved notions are not exactly verboten (and furthermore, are part of a number of theories, there is for example to preconception that alleles do not act in concert within the Modern Synthesis). Importantly, the regularity of natural law and the other base axioms of science rather explicitly rule out deities from any manner of scientific credibility - science does not brook deities.
Secondly, the scientific method explicitly incorporates the principles of parsimony (including Occam's Razor). The very nature of "God Hypotheses" immediately rules deities from the running - they will almost always be superfluous. However, more importantly, science does not default to agnosticism - science, due to considerations of parsimony defaults to "denial" in the face of a lack of rationale for the assent to some concept. However, in cases where there is phenomena to be explained but evidence but it is inconclusive or yet to be explored, or competing lines of evidence for mutually exclusive proprositions then science opts for agnosticism.
---
This is a purely scientifc issue (or philosophy of science issue) separate from the question of atheism or we apostates' assault upon the poor disenfanchised religious. Science simply does not default to agnosticism AND has preconcieved notions throughout it.
Nevertheless, I think it's disingenuous to say that religion's purpose is to "develop virtue" rather than mindlessly impress doctrine. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as some eastern traditions (that I am admittingly less familiar with) started with a central cult which focused on repetitive ritual and the preservation and expansion of the group. Yes, from an individual perspective you believed in religion to be "virtuous," but this "virtue" was largely defined by adherence to the dogma of the cult.
The purpose of government is to serve the common good. Few governments have served this function, fewer still were chiefly characterized by it. That doesn't change the basic point of government, anymore than having a lot of cars that won't start changes the basic point of a car.
I don't think a government's purpose is to serve the common good.
Ideally (at least in this liberal democrat's opinion) it is, but as you said, this has not usually been the case. Governments have more generally been an instrument for oppression of the many by the few.
Though I think our difference here is rather metaphysical and probably off-topic.
It's difficult to imagine that you can't distinguish between an education in, say, music, and one in a specific theology.
No idea about music, or what relevant disanalogy you had in mind. For fine arts, English, etc. most critical theory uses dogmatic assumptions in a way that would probably be unacceptable in many theology departments. Postmodernism did not become accepted because of exciting new evidence in its favor or its ability to better explain anything whatsoever. The apparent position of many departments in the humanities is that it would be nonsense to apply such a standard to their field of endeavor. Their value lies not in their ability to impart dispassionate facts according to objective criteria but in their contributions to a student's insight, compassion, and understanding of humanity. Similarly, a theology department's purpose (like religion itself) is not to mindlessly impress doctrine on students but to develop virtues in their character.
Maybe theology departments don't do this; maybe they do exactly the opposite, or maybe all the "virtues" they promote are themselves controversial. I don't know, never having been in any classes on theology. Even if I had, I doubt any one person's experience counts for much. But I do know it is hardly alone among academic disciplines in its failure to ground its subject matter in the scientific method.
They intend to teach something that is an interpretation of the universe. It is, unfortunately for them, a completely unfounded one. This is the realm of the scientific method, and should be judged against the same standards as any discipline that deals with those things.
As to your pithy little shitface quip about the gravity bit, care to correct me, instead of being a belligerent ass? I'll admit that my last physics class was years ago, and science moves very quickly, but the last best approximation of why gravity works the way it does was Einsten's fourth-dimension space bending thing, according to those classes. That doesn't remove the fact that it's still essentially invisible to us.
It's basically like air was a few centuries ago, right? The result is essentially a god-of-the-gaps deal when it comes to religious reasoning.
Ok. All I need to do is teach you Reimann's theory of the plenum, the fundamental definition of space under classical mechanics, mathematics up to tensors, and physics through special relativity. Then we could begin talking about gravity. Then to discuss whether general relativity constitutes an explanation of gravity we could discuss both the philosophy of science and metaphysics for a while.
Or we could both agree that it was a bad idea for to try and use this as an example, and move on.
Yeah, physics is little more than a passing interest for me. I much prefer my soft sciences.
It was brought up, I think, to point out the definite tendency towards god-of-the-gaps with all things theological. We don't know, or even if we do, we can assume it's wrong and shove god in there. This is what happened with Intelligent Design v. Evolution, and it's because of the vapid, insipid nature of religious learning.
Fuck, look at the people that tout ID. They've all god "Christian Education" degrees and such. It really diminishes the value of real degrees, knowing they can get one.
I hate Christianity, and hate is not a word I use lightly. Even if the Christian god does exist, I shouldn't have to submit to his will to be considered a good person. But that is neither here nor there.
Intelligent design does not exist solely to legitimise religion. I'm not a religious person, but I'm still inclined to it.
Intelligent design has been around for pretty much as long as gods were used to explain phenomenon. It's pretty much indistinguishable from the god of the gaps argument.
That does not represent the whole of the idea's existence.
Yes. It does.
At least if you're trying to term it a scientific hypothesis called "Intelligent Design." That term was coined by the Discovery Institute, an explicitly Christian organization. The idea you are forwarding is called Creationism. It has no utility, no explanatory power, and no evidence.
It's also one of the most discussed topics on the entire god damned internet. www.talkorigins.org if you really must.
At least if you're trying to term it a scientific hypothesis called "Intelligent Design." That term was coined by the Discovery Institute, an explicitly Christian organization. The idea you are forwarding is called Creationism. It has no utility, no explanatory power, and no evidence.
It's also one of the most discussed topics on the entire god damned internet. www.talkorigins.org if you really must.
Who created the term does not matter. Its working definition is "the assertion that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'" Intelligent cause. Not White Jesus and the Christian God.
Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity. I do not believe that the intelligent cause is necessarily a deity, nor that it necessarily created the universe. Only that it directs it.
At least if you're trying to term it a scientific hypothesis called "Intelligent Design." That term was coined by the Discovery Institute, an explicitly Christian organization. The idea you are forwarding is called Creationism. It has no utility, no explanatory power, and no evidence.
It's also one of the most discussed topics on the entire god damned internet. www.talkorigins.org if you really must.
Who created the term does not matter. Its working definition is "the assertion that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'" Intelligent cause. Not White Jesus and the Christian God.
Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity. I do not believe that the intelligent cause is necessarily a deity, nor that it necessarily created the universe. Only that it directs it.
It was only called "Intelligent Design" once everyone kicked the "God made the earth in seven days around six-thousand years ago" to the curb with carbon dating and fossils. Even with fossil evidence and carbon dating it took nearly 25 years to get rid of that shit. So they repackaged it and are trying to make a go of it again.
The above has nothing to do with college and post-graduate theology degrees/study. It has to do with crazy fundies of every religion. I do not care what they teach down at Bob Jones University as it is not accredited. I do care what they pass off as a masters program down at the state funded center of higher education.
Alright, I'll concede that. I've never actually seen someone suggest intelligent design as science with complete honesty before. Or perhaps I'm too suspicious, having seen too much sock-puppetry in the past.
ID has never been a good idea. Even before evolution was ever suggested as a method of explaining life on earth, ID was not a reasonable proposition. Or at the minimum, it was no more reasonable than "it just is." That problem remains, and has not been surmounted.
'But wait!' you might say, 'what about all of those animals who seem to fit just so, and have these fantastic abilities to survive?' Any intelligence capable of design would have to be more complex than its productions. What explains its existence? The traditional answer is, 'it just is.'
Cut out the middle-man, and creationism is its favorite strawman. "random chance."
At least if you're trying to term it a scientific hypothesis called "Intelligent Design." That term was coined by the Discovery Institute, an explicitly Christian organization. The idea you are forwarding is called Creationism. It has no utility, no explanatory power, and no evidence.
It's also one of the most discussed topics on the entire god damned internet. www.talkorigins.org if you really must.
Who created the term does not matter. Its working definition is "the assertion that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'" Intelligent cause. Not White Jesus and the Christian God.
Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity. I do not believe that the intelligent cause is necessarily a deity, nor that it necessarily created the universe. Only that it directs it.
It was only called "Intelligent Design" once everyone kicked the "God made the earth in seven days around six-thousand years ago" to the curb with carbon dating and fossils. Even with fossil evidence and carbon dating it took nearly 25 years to get rid of that shit. So they repackaged it and are trying to make a go of it again.
The above has nothing to do with college and post-graduate theology degrees/study. It has to do with crazy fundies of every religion. I do not care what they teach down at Bob Jones University as it is not accredited. I do care what they pass off as a masters program down at the state funded center of higher education.
I don't care what Christians do with it. I am not a Christian, yet I subscribe to Intelligent Design. If you want to argue that Intelligent Design is an explicitly Christian belief, you are either going to argue that I am a Christian, that I do not believe in Intelligent Design, or that I do not exist.
Who created the term does not matter. Its working definition is "the assertion that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'" Intelligent cause. Not White Jesus and the Christian God.
Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity. I do not believe that the intelligent cause is necessarily a deity, nor that it necessarily created the universe. Only that it directs it.
1) The problem with the Intelligent Design definition you offered is in the phrase "best explained". "Deity did it" is not an explanation. It is a faith claim. And explanation explains and a best explanation would be the best explanation. Saying "deity did it" is tantamount to saying "unicorn did it". It doesn't mean anything; doesn't answer any questions. It's just an unfounded statement based upon preference.
2) The second paragraph bothers me. You say "creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity". Then I have a question. Is the "I do not.." section describing your beliefs, or are you putting words into the mouth of creationists? Because you say "I do not believe that the intelligent cause is necessarily a diety, nor that it necessarily created the universe". But this is right after you said "creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a diety". So either you defined creationism and then showed how you are not a creationist or you defined creationism and then contradicted yourself.
Who created the term does not matter. Its working definition is "the assertion that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'" Intelligent cause. Not White Jesus and the Christian God.
Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity. I do not believe that the intelligent cause is necessarily a deity, nor that it necessarily created the universe. Only that it directs it.
1) The problem with the Intelligent Design definition you offered is in the phrase "best explained". "Deity did it" is not an explanation. It is a faith claim. And explanation explains and a best explanation would be the best explanation. Saying "deity did it" is tantamount to saying "unicorn did it". It doesn't mean anything; doesn't answer any questions. It's just an unfounded statement based upon preference.
2) The second paragraph bothers me. You say "creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity". Then I have a question. Is the "I do not.." section describing your beliefs, or are you putting words into the mouth of creationists? Because you say "I do not believe that the intelligent cause is necessarily a diety, nor that it necessarily created the universe". But this is right after you said "creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a diety". So either you defined creationism and then showed how you are not a creationist or you defined creationism and then contradicted yourself.
1) Remind me which part of Intelligent Design says the intelligent cause has to be a deity?
2) I defined creationism and then showed how I am not a creationist. The entire purpose of my posting is to show that one can subscribe to Intelligent Design without believing in any theistic belief system.
I don't care what Christians do with it. I am not a Christian, yet I subscribe to Intelligent Design. If you want to argue that Intelligent Design is an explicitly Christian belief, you are either going to argue that I am a Christian, that I do not believe in Intelligent Design, or that I do not exist.
Go.
You exist and you subscribe to "intelligent design." However, the term is so tied up with the american christian right that finding it used in an honest manner by a non-christian is extremely startling.
Intelligent design has pull with virtually anyone who doesn't feel that (or is unaware that) evolution and the like is sufficient for making the world the way it is. It's by no means tied solely to the American Christian Right.
Who created the term does not matter. Its working definition is "the assertion that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'" Intelligent cause. Not White Jesus and the Christian God.
Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity. I do not believe that the intelligent cause is necessarily a deity, nor that it necessarily created the universe. Only that it directs it.
1) The problem with the Intelligent Design definition you offered is in the phrase "best explained". "Deity did it" is not an explanation. It is a faith claim. And explanation explains and a best explanation would be the best explanation. Saying "deity did it" is tantamount to saying "unicorn did it". It doesn't mean anything; doesn't answer any questions. It's just an unfounded statement based upon preference.
2) The second paragraph bothers me. You say "creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity". Then I have a question. Is the "I do not.." section describing your beliefs, or are you putting words into the mouth of creationists? Because you say "I do not believe that the intelligent cause is necessarily a diety, nor that it necessarily created the universe". But this is right after you said "creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a diety". So either you defined creationism and then showed how you are not a creationist or you defined creationism and then contradicted yourself.
1) Remind me which part of Intelligent Design says the intelligent cause has to be a deity?
2) I defined creationism and then showed how I am not a creationist. The entire purpose of my posting is to show that one can subscribe to Intelligent Design without believing in any theistic belief system.
1) No part of Intelligent Design says the intelligent cause has to be a deity. Inteligent Design does, however, posit the existence of an intelligent "cause" or "force" or "being" or "something which designs intelligently. And it does so with no evidence of such a "cause" or "force" or "being" or "something which designs intelligently". There cannot be Intelligent Design without an Intelligent Designer, and the ID movement, perhaps spending all of its time differentiating itself from Creationism, has yet to prove the existence of such a designer. And that's why it fails the "best explanation" test, because it fails to explain, define, and prove the existence of the intelligent designer.
So, again, you can say that there is an Intelligent Designer. But until you prove that there is an intelligent designer not much has been said.
2) Alright, my mistake. Though, how can there be Intelligent Design without some intelligent designer which would not fit nicely into the role of a diety within a theistic belief system? If one is going t posit the existence of an Intelligent Designer yet maintain that one is not a theist one has to ask "why?".
Intelligent design has pull with virtually anyone who doesn't feel that (or is unaware that) evolution and the like is sufficient for making the world the way it is. It's by no means tied solely to the American Christian Right.
Damn straight. Us Goryuni-Chechen-American quasi-religious agnostic philosophers of Taoist influence can use it too.
Posts
re: Economics - Uhh... yeah? I don't really see your point here. Sure purely altruistic behaviors exist, but in general humans DO tend to act in their own best interest, just as every other living organism ever.
The point is, these are viable assumptions. They have very real, empirical evidence to support them. Theology simply does not.
NO ONE makes fun of the concept of the trinity more than I do.
But here's something for you that actually comes from hard science:
light is both a particle AND a wave.
Or how about quantum mechanics, and heisenburg uncertanty?
Or special reletivity. That is one of my favorites. The idea that at a sudden point you simply can't go any faster. That doesn't make ANY sense, if you merely look at it on the base level. It takes lots of hard work and calculation to getto that conclusion, yet most of us accept it without ever having proven it ourselves.
I'm sorry, but as long as theology follows its own consistency, it really doesn't matter whether or not it has concepts that other disciplines disagree with. There are PLENTY of conflicting things taught in universities.
Are you referencing the problem of induction? You might as well just go 'matrix lol' and get it over with.
Except that I think we can all agree both society AND psychology have an effect on a person's behavior. Yet sociology, on its base level, seeks to explain everything without paying ANY attention to psychology. You can't just explain that away, without accepting that it's okay forother courses to disregard certain things, as long as they pay attention to what they profess to focus on, which is what people have been complaining that theology does.
Actually, there AREN'T any purely altruistic acts, but that is a whole other can of worms.
My point, though, was that sometimes people act AGAINST their own best interests for no particular reason. In economics, you assume consumer competance, but sometimes consumers ARE incompetant.
As I said, on higher levels, you come up with ways to deal with the flaws in the base assumptions, but so does theology too.
Special relativity doesn't suffer from any logicl contradictions. There's nothing logically contradictory about the nature of the universe being such that you can't go faster than c. The only thing you mentioned which comes close to being an actual logical contradiction is the particle-wave duality, which can be non-problematically restated as light behaving both as a particle and a wave.
On the other hand, saying that Jesus is 100% god and 100% man betrays a misunderstanding of the notion of percent, or implies that god and man are not exclusive properties. God and man are pretty clearly exclusive, however, as a thing being god implies its immortality, and a thing being man implies its mortality.
You said that theology proceeds logically in the same manner as philosophy does, but with a different starting assumption about the world. This is false on two grounds. First, philosophy is generally ontologically neutral--it's considered bad form to begin from an assumption of god or not god without proceeding argument, and in areas where it's not absolutely necessary, god is not introduced into the discussion. Second, theology does proceed in accordance with strict logical reasoning, or it would have long ago collapsed under the trinity, the nature of jesus, the problem of evil, the nature of free will, and so on.
I do not have a problem with gay marriage thus I do not think it would affect the sanctity of marriage.
So are you saying you wouldn't have a problem with an entire department devoted to Greek mythology that acted as if the gods actually existed so they could spend time debating and ascribing qualities to them?
I think if a college separated theology into the areas that Dawkins suggested it would have more integrity than one that didn't.
What is more prestigious getting a hard science or engineering degree from a school like MIT or Purdue, or from Oral Roberts.
Even if the religious ideas didn't bleed over into the other schools, I think a college with less theology should and would be more highly regarded. (Yes I understand there are schools like Notre Dame that are very religious)
While as far as I know the course at Oxford concentrates on the history of religion and the study of religious texts there are options to study religion in a sociological and philosophical context. The other thing to note is that there is an average intake of ~60 with a successful applicant rate of ~40%. Whilst I realise that, in the context of this thread, this probably has no bearing, it is a fairly popular course.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say.
Assuming that sociology ignores everything about psychology (which I'm not sure is true), they can ignore psychology because there is entire other department devoted to it. With theology there are no other departments devoted entirely to explaining the things they ignore that are related to the subject matter of theology.
At a Bible College, yes, theology probably assumes the existence of God. One would hope though that at a more secular institution Theology would simply assume the existence of religion. I don't really see the problem with that.
Well, er, good. But Dawkins seems to claim that Theology in almost any form has no real content at all, and the idea that it can be compared with the study of "leprechauns" which, in my view, is ridiculous.
In that form, as I've argued above, he's right... there is no real content at all. I don't see how fundamentally that's any different than the study of leprechauns other than the fact that there is not by any means a significant portion of the population that really believes in leprechauns, whereas a considerable number of people do believe in God or a god. But just because a bunch of people believe it doesn't make it so.
You're right. There is theology and then there is Religious study.
Well I've always seen theology as the study of religion, and that's the definition I've been arguing from. If you guys are arguing from a different definition then I concede that, from that direction, the study of theology in a public institution is a bit suspect. However I'll leave you with:
Religious study is more how and why including subjects such as Jonestown.
Those are connotations that seem rational to me.
Unfortunately, in the UK there is no legal separation of Church and State. I think there definitely should be (along with a separation of 'old inbred chinless fucks' and 'State', but I'm in a minority there, astoundingly.) Oxford getting money for what is essentially a seminary is small potatoes, since the UK has a state religion.
But I'd agree there needs to be more clarity and honesty about which classes are a study of religion and which are promoting it.
That's not only factually incorrect, but ignorant of the scientific method (such as it is) itself.
Science explicitly comes with a number of preconcieved notions, such as the regularity of natural law across the universe, explanatory theories are preconcieved as more likely to be correct than empty unfruitful pseudo-explanations compatible with any state of affairs(see: "god did it", "invisible fairies control all behaviour in the universe", Freud's theories), and quite a few others. So, preconcieved notions are not exactly verboten (and furthermore, are part of a number of theories, there is for example to preconception that alleles do not act in concert within the Modern Synthesis). Importantly, the regularity of natural law and the other base axioms of science rather explicitly rule out deities from any manner of scientific credibility - science does not brook deities.
Secondly, the scientific method explicitly incorporates the principles of parsimony (including Occam's Razor). The very nature of "God Hypotheses" immediately rules deities from the running - they will almost always be superfluous. However, more importantly, science does not default to agnosticism - science, due to considerations of parsimony defaults to "denial" in the face of a lack of rationale for the assent to some concept. However, in cases where there is phenomena to be explained but evidence but it is inconclusive or yet to be explored, or competing lines of evidence for mutually exclusive proprositions then science opts for agnosticism.
---
This is a purely scientifc issue (or philosophy of science issue) separate from the question of atheism or we apostates' assault upon the poor disenfanchised religious. Science simply does not default to agnosticism AND has preconcieved notions throughout it.
Ideally (at least in this liberal democrat's opinion) it is, but as you said, this has not usually been the case. Governments have more generally been an instrument for oppression of the many by the few.
Though I think our difference here is rather metaphysical and probably off-topic.
Yeah, physics is little more than a passing interest for me. I much prefer my soft sciences.
It was brought up, I think, to point out the definite tendency towards god-of-the-gaps with all things theological. We don't know, or even if we do, we can assume it's wrong and shove god in there. This is what happened with Intelligent Design v. Evolution, and it's because of the vapid, insipid nature of religious learning.
Fuck, look at the people that tout ID. They've all god "Christian Education" degrees and such. It really diminishes the value of real degrees, knowing they can get one.
Intelligent design does not exist solely to legitimise religion. I'm not a religious person, but I'm still inclined to it.
Actually...
That does not represent the whole of the idea's existence.
Yes. It does.
At least if you're trying to term it a scientific hypothesis called "Intelligent Design." That term was coined by the Discovery Institute, an explicitly Christian organization. The idea you are forwarding is called Creationism. It has no utility, no explanatory power, and no evidence.
It's also one of the most discussed topics on the entire god damned internet. www.talkorigins.org if you really must.
Who created the term does not matter. Its working definition is "the assertion that 'certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.'" Intelligent cause. Not White Jesus and the Christian God.
Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity. I do not believe that the intelligent cause is necessarily a deity, nor that it necessarily created the universe. Only that it directs it.
It was only called "Intelligent Design" once everyone kicked the "God made the earth in seven days around six-thousand years ago" to the curb with carbon dating and fossils. Even with fossil evidence and carbon dating it took nearly 25 years to get rid of that shit. So they repackaged it and are trying to make a go of it again.
The above has nothing to do with college and post-graduate theology degrees/study. It has to do with crazy fundies of every religion. I do not care what they teach down at Bob Jones University as it is not accredited. I do care what they pass off as a masters program down at the state funded center of higher education.
ID has never been a good idea. Even before evolution was ever suggested as a method of explaining life on earth, ID was not a reasonable proposition. Or at the minimum, it was no more reasonable than "it just is." That problem remains, and has not been surmounted.
'But wait!' you might say, 'what about all of those animals who seem to fit just so, and have these fantastic abilities to survive?' Any intelligence capable of design would have to be more complex than its productions. What explains its existence? The traditional answer is, 'it just is.'
Cut out the middle-man, and creationism is its favorite strawman. "random chance."
I don't care what Christians do with it. I am not a Christian, yet I subscribe to Intelligent Design. If you want to argue that Intelligent Design is an explicitly Christian belief, you are either going to argue that I am a Christian, that I do not believe in Intelligent Design, or that I do not exist.
Go.
1) The problem with the Intelligent Design definition you offered is in the phrase "best explained". "Deity did it" is not an explanation. It is a faith claim. And explanation explains and a best explanation would be the best explanation. Saying "deity did it" is tantamount to saying "unicorn did it". It doesn't mean anything; doesn't answer any questions. It's just an unfounded statement based upon preference.
2) The second paragraph bothers me. You say "creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity". Then I have a question. Is the "I do not.." section describing your beliefs, or are you putting words into the mouth of creationists? Because you say "I do not believe that the intelligent cause is necessarily a diety, nor that it necessarily created the universe". But this is right after you said "creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a diety". So either you defined creationism and then showed how you are not a creationist or you defined creationism and then contradicted yourself.
1) Remind me which part of Intelligent Design says the intelligent cause has to be a deity?
2) I defined creationism and then showed how I am not a creationist. The entire purpose of my posting is to show that one can subscribe to Intelligent Design without believing in any theistic belief system.
You exist and you subscribe to "intelligent design." However, the term is so tied up with the american christian right that finding it used in an honest manner by a non-christian is extremely startling.
1) No part of Intelligent Design says the intelligent cause has to be a deity. Inteligent Design does, however, posit the existence of an intelligent "cause" or "force" or "being" or "something which designs intelligently. And it does so with no evidence of such a "cause" or "force" or "being" or "something which designs intelligently". There cannot be Intelligent Design without an Intelligent Designer, and the ID movement, perhaps spending all of its time differentiating itself from Creationism, has yet to prove the existence of such a designer. And that's why it fails the "best explanation" test, because it fails to explain, define, and prove the existence of the intelligent designer.
So, again, you can say that there is an Intelligent Designer. But until you prove that there is an intelligent designer not much has been said.
2) Alright, my mistake. Though, how can there be Intelligent Design without some intelligent designer which would not fit nicely into the role of a diety within a theistic belief system? If one is going t posit the existence of an Intelligent Designer yet maintain that one is not a theist one has to ask "why?".
Damn straight. Us Goryuni-Chechen-American quasi-religious agnostic philosophers of Taoist influence can use it too.