Theology

[McCulloch]

Should theology be a recognized field of study in universities and other publicly recognized and accredited educational institutes?

the-ol-o-gy [thee-ol-uh-jee]
noun, plural -gies.

1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.

theology. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. (accessed: January 16, 2007).

Publicly recognized and accredited educational institutes grant baccalaureate (Bachelor of Theology; B.Th.; Th.B.), master's degrees (Master of Theology; Th.M.) and doctor's degrees (Doctor of Theology; Th.D.) in the field of Theology. Why? There is nothing in theology that can be objectively studied and tested like the sciences. There are degrees in fields other than science; literature, history, the arts. Is theology like them? Why are there not degree programs in astrology, alchemy and numerology?

[Cephus]

Of course you can't prove God's existence to the level that modern secularists demand; just like you can't prove plenty of things that we find perfectly reasonable to believe in. Theism may not be able to be proven, but it can be shown to be rational and the fact that it can't be empirically verified in no way detracts from it or anything else that isn't open to empirical verification/falsification but is entirely rational to believe. This is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making though.

You cannot prove God's existence on *ANY* objective level whatsoever. There isn't one single, solitary shred of objective, concrete evidence that can be offered for the existence of God. There is, by far, less evidence for God than there is for Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster or honest politicians and we all know the last one doesn't exist.

In fact, I don't think you can come up with anything that cannot be supported by some objective evidence that is rational for people to believe. Why don't you try?

[Greatest I Am]

" Because there are no religious people who aren't hostile to science. Anywhere. At any time."

I beg to differ.

As a believer I have no problem whatsoever with science. I would suggest you look again for the first time. Even Rome regards science with the respect science deserves. Where you got your information is not a reliable source. Galileo is dead and so is religious resentment of science. Christians by and large accept science and indeed embrace it.

Regards
DL

[LightGrenade04]

You cannot prove God's existence on *ANY* objective level whatsoever. There isn't one single, solitary shred of objective, concrete evidence that can be offered for the existence of God. There is, by far, less evidence for God than there is for Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster or honest politicians and we all know the last one doesn't exist.

You left out pink unicorns...God, you people have no originality.

In fact, I don't think you can come up with anything that cannot be supported by some objective evidence that is rational for people to believe. Why don't you try?

No, first of all, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand - your partisanship has led you to simply run with this whole "you can't prove God! No you can't!!" thing in a way analogous to the 8-year-olds who live across the street from me argue over the rules of hide-and-seek. Furthermore, you're just going to stamp your feet and play the "it's not science!" card as though that decided everything. Because no argument that is not scientifically verified can ever be rational. Ever.

I'll tell you what though, people like Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Stephen T. Davis, Robert Koons, and many others have written quite a bit about this. You could check with them.

[LightGrenade04]

" Because there are no religious people who aren't hostile to science. Anywhere. At any time."

I beg to differ.

As a believer I have no problem whatsoever with science. I would suggest you look again for the first time. Even Rome regards science with the respect science deserves. Where you got your information is not a reliable source. Galileo is dead and so is religious resentment of science. Christians by and large accept science and indeed embrace it.

Regards
DL

Yeah I know, I was being sarcastic. I apologize for the confusion; sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet.

[Cephus]

You left out pink unicorns...God, you people have no originality.

I left out the Flying Spaghetti Monster too, but it wasn't supposed to be an all-inclusive list.

I'll tell you what though, people like Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Stephen T. Davis, Robert Koons, and many others have written quite a bit about this. You could check with them.

I have, they have nothing worthwhile to say either. They just fall back on 'we have faith and faith is all we need' nonsense.

Guess what? Muslims have faith in Allah. Hindus have faith in Krishna. UFO nuts have faith in aliens. Faith doesn't make truth, it just makes blind, irrational, illogical belief. So long as all it takes is faith, a belief cannot be rational, period.

[Goat]

You cannot prove God's existence on *ANY* objective level whatsoever. There isn't one single, solitary shred of objective, concrete evidence that can be offered for the existence of God. There is, by far, less evidence for God than there is for Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster or honest politicians and we all know the last one doesn't exist.

You left out pink unicorns...God, you people have no originality.

But, Pink Unicorns exist!!

[Cephus]

But, Pink Unicorns exist!!

But only invisible ones!

[Greatest I Am]

There is no way to prove the existence of God without miracles.

We believers are not here to sell the unprovable. All we can sell is the Christian philosophy and hope that people will see the logic and beauty of the systems created by our God.
Doubt is understandable, even believers always have a small amount of doubt but see enough of this Perfect philosophy to believe.

Look for the Perfection of the world when you see it you will know God.

Regards
DL

[LightGrenade04]

I'll tell you what though, people like Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Stephen T. Davis, Robert Koons, and many others have written quite a bit about this. You could check with them.

I have, they have nothing worthwhile to say either. They just fall back on 'we have faith and faith is all we need' nonsense.

Shoot, you're absolutely right; the cumulative arguments from the entire corpus of contemporary theistic philosophers ultimately amounts to an appeal to faith. How silly of me to think it could be anything else. A paragon of philosophical scholarship you are to be so familiar with their work.

Guess what? Muslims have faith in Allah. Hindus have faith in Krishna. UFO nuts have faith in aliens. Faith doesn't make truth, it just makes blind, irrational, illogical belief. So long as all it takes is faith, a belief cannot be rational, period.

I don't know what's more abhorrent, you're understanding of basic theology or your blind partisanship.

[Cephus]

I don't know what's more abhorrent, you're understanding of basic theology or your blind partisanship.

Understands the basic theology. He also understands that, at it's very core, the basic theology is an attempt to sell a bunch of irrational snake oil, wrapped in emotional platitudes and empty promises. It's an attempt by religious shysters to sell a load of horsedroppings to people with emotional needs by making promises that satisfy their fears, but have no substance beyond it.

That's religion in a nutshell. It's what you buy into.