As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Dismantle Theology Departments, God damn it!

15678911»

Posts

  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    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?".

    1) If you want proof for a theory to be legitimate, you are in the wrong discussion.

    2) The answer to this question is extremely complicated. Are you sure you have the desire, and years required, to hear it?

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    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.

    A Taoist would not say that the Tao is an Intelligent Designer.

    _J_ on
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    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.

    A Taoist would not say that the Tao is an Intelligent Designer.

    I'm not a Taoist. I am of Taoist influence.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    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?".

    1) If you want proof for a theory to be legitimate, you are in the wrong discussion.

    2) The answer to this question is extremely complicated. Are you sure you have the desire, and years required, to hear it?

    1) Any reasonable person desires proof.

    2) If it won't be a string of unfounded, internally-contradictory, needless, semantic, ill-conceived crap? Sure. Though, it oughtn't take that long to explain how one can believe in Intelligent Design yet maintain that there is no Intelligent Designer or that the Ingelligent Designer totally isn't God, given that the existence of neither "god" nor "intelligent designer" has been proven.

    _J_ on
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    1) If you want proof for everything, you must have absolute knowledge. No one has this.

    2) If you're so impatient, I can give you a condensed version. I am of the belief that every single life-form in existence has a collective, sub-conscious intelligence, and that it conforms to its own needs and desires. That the universe is a self-made man, if you will.

    Now, if you expect me to argue about whether Intelligent Design is true, I'm not going to do that, because that is futile. My primary purpose in posting here is to establish that Intelligent Design is not married to devotion to god.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    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.

    I'm beginning to think you're being purposely obtuse. I posted "the term is so tied up with" the American Christian Right. Not the idea. And the idea is pretty damned tied up with the American Christian Right as well. I at no point suggested that they have a monopoly on it.

    And I think that the fact (and I agree completely that it is fact) that ID comes to mind without any religious influence - I think that ID predates and likely shapes many religious traditions - does not speak to its validity. ID as an idea is appealing to common sense. However, it is one of many cases where common sense and rigorous examination of fact disagree utterly.

    nescientist on
  • dangerdoomdangerdangerdoomdanger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    I am of the belief that every single life-form in existence has a collective, sub-conscious intelligence, and that it conforms to its own needs and desires. That the universe is a self-made man, if you will.

    I'll subscribe to that.

    dangerdoomdanger on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    So, the lesson of the day is that Church is a monist, from the way it sounds.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If you must break the universe down, categorise it, you may call me that, though I wouldn't. Monism is generally associated with the idea of God. When it comes to deities, I would classify myself as agnostic, and even if they do exist, I would wager that they are much, much less than they are held to be.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    The way I've read monism is that there isn't really a singular deity concept as much as there is a sort of Jainist-like singular, all-encompassing, "spirit." A bit like Brahma from the Hindu faiths, but without a face.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Monism isn't a single faith, or even necessarily a religion at all. It's more like a non-mutually-exclusive label, sort of like polytheism or monotheism. It's related to absolutism, but distinguished from dualism. It's just the belief that all things are one, but that's not really what I see, which is another reason I wouldn't apply the label to myself. It's the metaphysical or theological belief that all is one, that there are no fundamental divisions, and a unified set of laws underlie nature. That's not at all what I think. I think that life is inter-connected, but I don't think there is any sort of unified set of laws, and while there are not necessarily fundamental divisions, every being is its own.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    If you must break the universe down, categorise it, you may call me that, though I wouldn't. Monism is generally associated with the idea of God. When it comes to deities, I would classify myself as agnostic, and even if they do exist, I would wager that they are much, much less than they are held to be.

    You can't be agnostic and then posit the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Agnosticism maintains that "the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience."

    You said, "I am of the belief that every single life-form in existence has a collective, sub-conscious intelligence, and that it conforms to its own needs and desires. That the universe is a self-made man, if you will."

    An agnostic would maintain that ultimately these things are unknown, yet you are happy to posit their existence. So you aren't an agnostic, because you are making claims beyond "We can't know."

    I would say that you are a very confused Taoist who isn't happy to adhere to Taoism, because adhereing to a specific religion makes you feel less special. So you fuck with it a little bit and add some Western influence and arrive at some form of the Tao that Intelligently designs, but is not a deity, because if you believed in a deity it wouldn't piss off your parents quite as much.

    _J_ on
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I'm confused; since when is the role of religion to anger one's family?

    Regardless, my response to your post is: No.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    _J_: Typically, agnosticism only applies to the Theist/Atheist debate.

    Incenjucar on
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Indeed. I don't see what's wrong with an approach to the universe's origins that is more complex than "A divine being did everything" or "Everything happened by itself". As I understand it, I live in a country of "liberty", and we are communicating on a web forum that is based on the free exchange and debate of users' opinions. Refrain from telling me what I may or may not postulate or believe.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    This isn't the place to discuss the merits of supernatural/religious/whatever views.

    Incenjucar on
  • ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Exactly. He asked me a question, and I answered it. I wasn't expecting that answering said question was an invitation to try to hijack the thread.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Abstract Metal ThingyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    wow crazy derailment of the thread.

    shall we get back to the whole Theology in universities thing?

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    All right, a spin-off. Would the good Dawkins object to a Buddhist theology department, since such a department need not claim anything supernatural, eschatological, etc?

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    zakkiel wrote: »
    All right, a spin-off. Would the good Dawkins object to a Buddhist theology department, since such a department need not claim anything supernatural, eschatological, etc?

    ...What exactly would they -study-?

    Incenjucar on
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    All right, a spin-off. Would the good Dawkins object to a Buddhist theology department, since such a department need not claim anything supernatural, eschatological, etc?

    ...What exactly would they -study-?
    Koans, the path to enlightenment, methods for maintaining lovingkindness without becoming attached to particular objects, and so on.

    zakkiel on
    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2007
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    All right, a spin-off. Would the good Dawkins object to a Buddhist theology department, since such a department need not claim anything supernatural, eschatological, etc?

    ...What exactly would they -study-?
    Koans, the path to enlightenment, methods for maintaining lovingkindness without becoming attached to particular objects, and so on.

    Theology departments are not seminary. It is not the case that a theology department is a "christian" or "buddhist" department; theology departments study theology in the broad sense.

    In a theology department one would not study the particular tenants of a given religion in the same way a monk would study them. To say that a theology department would act in the manner you describe indicates a lack of knowledge for what theology is. Theology departments are not seminaries, they are not departments in which religion is persued. They are departments in which religion is studied and analyzed, hopefully within an academic framework and mindset.

    To claim that there ought not be Theology Departments is to claim that there ought not be Psychology Departments.

    _J_ on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Church wrote: »
    1) If you want proof for everything, you must have absolute knowledge.

    Only if you want absolute proof for everything.

    This is what the creationists/ID proponents often fall back on if you beat them over the head with enough facts. Like if they ask for a missing link, and you show them a missing link, they demand another missing link, ignoring that a complete fossil record (which never existed anyway) is not needed for proof.

    DarkPrimus on
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    1) If you want proof for everything, you must have absolute knowledge.

    Only if you want absolute proof for everything.

    This is what the creationists/ID proponents often fall back on if you beat them over the head with enough facts. Like if they ask for a missing link, and you show them a missing link, they demand another missing link, ignoring that a complete fossil record (which never existed anyway) is not needed for proof.

    It's one of my biggest gripes.

    Since one side puts much stock and value in facts, the other side of the argument merely has to attack that and insist you prove YOUR side, which you cannot. But they don't have the same snag, since an "Intelligent Designer" tends to fall outside the realm of Physics.

    In other words:
    "PROVE the Big Bang!"
    "I can't. Prove God."
    "I can't, he's beyond scientific laws."

    The Muffin Man on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    How is "theology" different from everything else in the Arts and Humanities?

    People study "beauty". Does "beauty" exist?
    How is philosophy different from theology in the Dawkinsian view?

    God is not the only thing in academia which is "made up". So why throw out theology but keep, say, ethics?

    _J_ on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    How is "theology" different from everything else in the Arts and Humanities?

    People study "beauty". Does "beauty" exist?
    How is philosophy different from theology in the Dawkinsian view?

    God is not the only thing in academia which is "made up". So why throw out theology but keep, say, ethics?

    I'm pretty sure I don't support the dissolution of theology departments, but there is a difference between theology and the other arts/humanities. Theology, at least in the sense that they aren't just basically history of religion, are devoted to the study of unverifiable sources regarding something for which there is no proof of existence.

    The other humanities deal, at least to some extent, with actual phenomena. Whether it's the moral value (an arbitrary but at least consistent measure) of human action for ethics, or the different aspects of knowledge or logic for philosophy, they at least have some connection to an objective real world, whatever subjective interpretations the study might put on top of it. Theology can't make the same claim.

    werehippy on
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    How is "theology" different from everything else in the Arts and Humanities?

    People study "beauty". Does "beauty" exist?
    How is philosophy different from theology in the Dawkinsian view?

    God is not the only thing in academia which is "made up". So why throw out theology but keep, say, ethics?

    I actually agree with teaching theology, but just like with a religion class, it's WAY too easy for someone with an agenda to twist it into whatever they want it to be, just like Sex Ed has been.

    Sure, it'd be great to teach our kids about Christianities roots, and how Greek and Roman mythology was once more than "myths" to people, and who Buddha was. But it could easily be turned into "Why God is awesome and all others are heathens/Why Religion is a lie and you're being fed crap by the church".

    Theology courses in college are a bit less susceptible, since it's harder to twist the minds of adults to your whim.

    The Muffin Man on
Sign In or Register to comment.