I have heard your shouts--and groans

[Thats my opinion]

Wow!

I didn't expect the response to my request for some rational conversation. Did I ever get it. I need to sort through the replies and answer them--in a new posting. I will probably ignore the diatribes and silly examples poking fun or anger at fundamentalists. The truth is I agree with those who know these things are far off the mark. Then there are hard-core atheists or agnostics, who have asked intelligent and thoughtful questions. I will try to reply to them in bulk. There are those who have serious theological questions about the value of any religious stuff. They deserve a conversation. Then there are a few that are just plain fun. You will hear from me in kind.
that's my opinion

[skepticscott]

1. Far off what mark?

On what basis do you decide that your interpretation of "god's will" is any more valid than the most rabid fundamentalist? On what basis do you even decide that the Bible accurately reflects god's will, intent or communications to humans? And of what value is theology until it can demonstrate the existence of what it's spilling so much ink about?

[dimbear]

3. Here you go.

"And of what value is theology until it can demonstrate the existence of what it's spilling so much ink about?"

Clever men spent centuries searching for the philosopher's stone and the key to transmutation.

what do we have to show for that? Chemistry. Meanwhile the Philosopher's stone remains UNDEMONSTRATED.

There's no a priori reason theology couldn't come up with something similarly useful.

Also, on a practical level, it's a living.

[skepticscott]

4. All of theology is nothing but

mental masturbation if the god they're talking about doesn't exist to begin with. And alchemy fell well short of discovering any of the foundational principles of chemistry, not to mention the fact that people were investigating things chemical for a long time without doing what we would consider alchemy. Alchemy can best be described as an unprofitable dead end within a much larger endeavor.

And if you think that pompous debate about things that don't exist will lead to something as useful as chemistry, all I can say is, don't hold your breath. The hallmark of legitimate fields of inquiry is that they increase knowledge and understanding over time. Theology has not done so, and has no excuse for not having done so.

[dimbear]

8. Copernicus was similarly rebuffed.

He caught flak from his scientific friends for casting horoscopes. Hard to doubt that astrology is the mother of astronomy.....

Hmmm. Fields of inquiry that increase knowledge. You mean like string theory? Life changers like that?

[darkstar3]

11. Nice way to dodge the issue.

HAS theology increased knowledge or understanding over time? Has theology done anything but diverge, and grow more contradictory when taken as a whole?

[dimbear]

12. Comparing modern theology with Hesiod, I think it's actually

a little simpler. Far fewer gods to contend with, and slightly more rational ones. Just slightly.

But---that's not what I'm defending. What I'm defending is that the study of nothing can be worthwhile, occasionally quite worthwhile, and shouldn't be proscribed.

That's what the dig at string theory is about.

It's not completely fair for me to drag in astrology, because of course that started out as a religion and only later became secular, but then again my resistance to temptation is not good.

[darkstar3]

17. Still not an answer.

And while not answering the question you've managed to ascribe motive to me and to skepticscott. No one is attempting to proscribe theology. People should be free to study whatever they want. But even though you have the freedom to study underwater basket weaving, that doesn't mean that underwater basket weaving will yield anything productive, and it doesn't mean that it should be placed on the same level of academic veracity as, say, biology.

[dimbear]

22. So has theology generated any value? That the question?

OK. I don't know.

Probably not.

Doesn't mean there's no use doing it.

Theologians have certainly spun off some interesting byproducts, for instance the ghost stories of M.R.James.

The alchemists spun off some interesting byproducts, like the idea of symbols for chemicals. The astrologers spun off oddly valuable star and planet tables still useful today for dating ancient events. String theorists--- not so much. I say live and let live.

I'm for almost anything that involves thinking but not putting people on bonfires.

[darkstar3]

23. Again you write as though someone here is attempting to eliminate or prevent

the study of theology. This is not the case. As I posted above, people can do whatever they want, but the fact that people study theology doesn't lend it any more validity or credence than underwater basket weaving.

[trotsky]

25. At least when you've finished underwater basket weaving...

...you have a soggy basket to show for it. Which is still more than a few millennia of theology has been able to produce.

[darkstar3]

26. True, that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Fewer gods than in Hesiod's time?

Well, that may or may not be true - Hindu theology has a lot of gods these days, and it has developed a lot in the past 2000 years, and that may include the naming of new gods. And the appearance of new relgions (Christianity, Islam Sikhism, Mormonism) since then has added new theological claims. Whether any gods have disappeared from 'theology' is debatable - does there need to be an active worshipper of a god for them to be included as part of theology, or are Zeus, Thor, or any minor deity from a small - even extinct - culture still allo part of 'theology'? I'd argue that, since no religion has any better claim to any truth than any other, you've got to include all the gods we still have knowledge of. So I'd say theology is inevitably more complicated - all it takes is a new god, and there's more to it.

Of course, if theology ever managed to disprove certain religious ideas, or disprove the existence of a single god, then it could get simpler. But I'm unaware of any god that a theologian has proved to be less real than the gods the theologian still concentrates on.

[skepticscott]

13. I've made no claims for string theory

that's your straw man. And in any case, string theory has only been around a very short time compared to Christian theology, and does not make the presumptions of knowing the truth that theology does. I'm willing to bet that string theory will be discarded as fruitless in a lot less than 2000 years if it has as bad a track record for increasing knowledge and understanding as theology.

And neither astrology nor alchemy studied things that did not exist at all. They were simply misguided avenues of thought in much larger areas of study, such as are present in just about any scientific field, and even with that, documentable discoveries and advances in knowledge were made all along. What's Christian theology's excuse for still having produced no increase in knowledge and understanding, despite almost 2000 years of trying?

[darkstar3]

5. Alchemy did NOT lead to chemistry.

In fact, the two existed side by side for quite some time. Alchemy was a dead end, not a transitory state.

[dimbear]

6. Correction noted.

I'll burn the chemistry books that taught me that.

Strange how similar the names are, tho. Almost as if they both came from the same Arabic word. Prolly coincidence.

[darkstar3]

7. You and I were taught by very different teachers.

And don't discount the possibility of coincidence.

[dimbear]

9. Variety is the spice of life, no?

http://www.chemistryexplained.com/A-Ar/Alchemy.html

Others share my misapprehension, it seems.

[Goblinmonger]

18. No, smoked paprika is the spice of life.

Seriously. That shit is off the hook.

[skepticscott]

14. Yes, and biology textbooks

still show the idiotic four step evolutionary progression from early to modern horses that is actually a gross misrepresentation of the real state of things.

What was your point again? That because something was in a textbook long ago that it must be true?

[TygrBright]

2. We will await your upcoming ouevre with breathless anticipation... sort of. n/t

[AlecBGreen]

16. "ouevre" ?

The French are not welcome in R/T. Take your butter-&-garlic-loving butt somewhere else. This is Amurika :P

All kidding aside, I learned a new word today. Thanks! Or should I say, merci?

oeu·vre/ˈœvrə/Noun

1. The works of a painter, composer, or author regarded collectively: "the complete oeuvre of Mozart".
2. A work of art, music, or literature

[laconicsax]

10. Thank you for allowing us your condescension in this matter.

Sincerely,

The Masses.

[trotsky]

15. LOL

:thumbsup:

[Deep13]

19. I don't think those who point to extremists are far off the mark.

Extremism is the natural consequence of any school of thought that teaches that it knows what the creator of the universe wants. In most cases extremists are only extreme in their application of dogma, but not the dogma itself.

[cleanhippie]

20. What a crock. Just another hit and run post.

I'm thinking SOCKPUPPET!!!!!!

[skepticscott]

21. In all likelihood

Yawn