Theology, What is it Good For? Absolutely Nothing!

[boatsnguitars]

I am going to argue that there are few things more useless than Theology.

Definition I will be using:
Theology is the systematic study and interpretation of religious beliefs, doctrines, practices, and texts within the context of a specific religious tradition or belief system. Theology often seeks to understand and explain the nature of the divine, the moral and ethical principles associated with a particular religion, and the relationship between humanity and the divine. Theology can be seen as both an academic discipline and a form of spiritual reflection, depending on the context in which it is pursued.

Lack of Empirical Evidence: Theology is often criticized for its reliance on faith and lack of empirical evidence. Unlike fields like science, which are based on observable and testable phenomena, theology deals with abstract concepts and beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven. This lack of empirical evidence undercuts all validity of theological claims. There is not a single theological claim that can be made that either can't be proven true or false in any objective sense.

Incompatibility with Modern Scientific Methodology: The scientific method is a rigorous process that relies on empirical evidence, experimentation, and falsifiability. Theology, on the other hand, often operates outside the scope of these principles, making it incompatible with modern scientific methodology. This removes Theology from the most rigorous and useful tool we have as humans to determine truth from fiction - Theology thumbs it's nose at science and simply takes the ball and goes home. It refuses to even play the game other than by it's own rules - which change depending on the Theologian.

Fragmentation and Subjectivity: Theology is a highly fragmented field, with various religious traditions, denominations, and sects often having conflicting theological interpretations and beliefs. This fragmentation can lead to subjectivity, where theological conclusions are heavily influenced by personal biases and cultural backgrounds. As a result, theological claims lack universal consistency and credibility. Worse, they can be completely internally consistent to one religion, but completely inconsistent to another religion - the only parallel is in fiction: The Stars Wars universe is distinctly different from the Lord of the Rings universe. Only by entering into one universe can you find consistency, yet, there is nothing to objectively assess one universe from the other with religion. Islam, Mormonism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. - they can't be proven wrong by another religion, since they all rely on supernatural and irrational beliefs; at least when viewed objectively.

Historical Conflicts and Divisions: Theology has played a significant role in historical conflicts, disputes, and divisions among different religious groups. Theological disagreements have often led to religious wars, schisms, and animosities, which can be seen as evidence of the negative consequences of theological study. It's not just that Theology is useless - it's dangerous. At least when someone brings up science and how it created the atom bomb, one can point to cancer cures and other benefits. With Theology, there seems to be no significant benefit - that is, if one points to the joy or peace religion offers, that can be done without theology, or, put another way: A ancient Polynesian found as much joy and peace in their religion as a modern Christian and theology would make no difference to that truth.

Limited Practical Utility: While theology may provide insights into the beliefs and practices of religious groups, it often has limited practical utility in addressing real-world problems and challenges. Fields like medicine, engineering, and economics offer tangible solutions and improvements to society, while theology is often seen as offering little practical guidance. Imagine all the people studying theology were to actually apply themselves to solving real problems? In truth, Theology is a massively egotistical practice of navel gazing.

Decline in Influence: In many modern societies, the influence of theology has declined significantly. People increasingly turn to secular and evidence-based approaches to address questions about the world and human existence, relegating theology to a more peripheral role in shaping public policy, education, and moral values. More and more - other than people studying theology to get rich off of old ladies - there is no demand for theologians to weigh in on any problem that faces the world. Sure, they are trotted out for a 30 second spot to comment on Halloween, or their view about another Virgin Mary statue leaking, but there are no serious people asking theologians for serious answers to serious questions.

Ethical and Moral Questions: Theological discussions around ethics and morality are often seen as arbitrary and subjective, as they depend on specific religious beliefs and interpretations. This can hinder the development of a shared moral framework that is inclusive and relevant to diverse societies. in fact, as I repeatedly say: No one understand morality less than a religious person.

Redundancy: Many philosophical and ethical questions that theology attempts to answer can also be addressed by other fields, such as philosophy, psychology, sociology, and ethics, without relying on religious beliefs. This makes theology appear redundant in the quest for knowledge and understanding. In the race case a theologian may have an actual answer that matters (I can't think of one), these are better answered by other fields; fields that have objective methods to determine the truth or falsity of the claims.

Changing Social and Cultural Norms: As societies evolve and adapt to changing norms and values, theology may find itself struggling to keep up with these shifts. Theological doctrines that were once considered absolute may become outdated and irrelevant in the face of evolving social and cultural norms. All religions die - all theologies become obsolete. Sure, current theologians believe their religion is the exception - which is exactly what all the other theologians believed before. Also, to this point, we see how religions change to meet current beliefs: Gay pastors, for example. What happened to no gays? It appears the earlier theologians were wrong - or the current ones are - and it's all just speculation and subjective opinion.

Lack of Consensus: Theological debates often lack consensus and can result in never-ending discussions without clear resolutions. This lack of conclusive answers can lead to frustration and a sense of futility in theological inquiry. There has never been consensus, never will be consensus because there are no facts to discuss. There is no "there there."

These are reasons Theology is useless. I would argue it damaging on top of it's uselessness - which makes it ultimately dangerous.

But, worse, beyond it being useless, it's so simplistic and arbitrary that it allows anyone to do it. Even the most simple-minded fool can wax on about their belief about their favorite God of the hour. They can make all kinds of proclamations about what their God thinks, want, wonders, does or does do. They can be inconsistent and claim it's us, the non-believer that doesn't understand! They can say things like "God says yes, no and maybe". They can claim God is too complex to understand - yet, they will tell us all about how they understand God. (This phenomenon isn't about how complex God is, but how poor the person is at expressing their childish grasp of a ephemeral subject that doesn't exist).

And, still worse... yes, it gets worse: Theology is a field ripe for attracting the insane; the conspiracy minded; the tin-foil hat wearing buffoons' that from their basement in Iowa have somehow discovered the answer to all questions through numbers and signs; who somehow know exactly what the government is doing, and is someone been anointed by God to understand these things and educate us all on these matters. And they are treated as divinely inspired - get that? Insane ramblings are equal to "divine inspiration" - That should tell us something of how valuable Theology is when you can't distinguish madness from inspired truth.

And still worse... Theology can be invented from whole cloth and considered respectable by the people who practice it: Think of how serious Scientologists take themselves! Mormons! Christians! They all think they all took themselves so seriously even as they were inventing the religion! Don't think for a moment that early Christians were any different from any other early religious group. They joined their little circles and told stories that made them feel good and decided it was the truth that everyone needed to hear. What ego! What profound ignorance! The blind leading the blind - and Theologians giving them cover every step of the way.

Watch the pomp and pageantry of a Church service. Watch how seriously they take the breaking of bread, or hanging from hooks, or dipping of water, or wearing special underwear, or bathing in the Ganges, or walking on coals... These were developed by Theologians to honor their imaginary gods - and there is no telling which, if any, actually does the thing it is supposed to do: God answers yes, no or maybe - remember? So, Theologians could say, "You must drink wine and eat bread to curry favor of Malosh the One-Eyed Bull God (or whatever practice or god) - but you can't know if that works because "yes, no, maybe."

In other words, a Theologian could invent ideas that they know are invented, but if he can get someone to believe them, he still gets paid. There is no QA/QC when it comes to Theology. If a school rejects some loon because they don't believe the Bible properly, that Theologian gets to go to another school and claim they are the one speaking the truth, and the old school is filled with vipers and heretics - and - as the events surrounding Marcion proved - none of it matters except that one tradition wins out over another. Not truth, mind you, just one story sounds better to more people.

Like art. Like a Hollywood Blockbuster. But, there is room in theology for the Art House films, and a host of other takes on the Supernatural Cartoon Universe in which gods can turn people into trees, water into wine, etc.

And we are supposed to take this seriously? We are to be respectful of these outrageously inane beliefs? Really? Have you seen the Pope's hat and robes? They are hilarious! It's as if they are mocking us - begging us to say something.

So, there is my argument against Theology. Would anyone like to argue in favor of Theology?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50

If it fails on credibility (and I assert that bit does) I also assert that it makes Theology and discussion of doctrine, pointless, futile and an utter waste of time.

I linked to a post which has now sat in RR for seven months with no response. Does it spark no theological curiosity?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50

If it fails on credibility (and I assert that bit does) I also assert that it makes Theology and discussion of doctrine, pointless, futile and an utter waste of time.

I linked to a post which has now sat in RR for seven months with no response. Does it spark no theological curiosity?

Evidently not. Any reason why it should? You might link again and I'll have a look and I'll say whether it interests me, for instance.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52

I linked to a post which has now sat in RR for seven months with no response. Does it spark no theological curiosity?

Evidently not. Any reason why it should? You might link again and I'll have a look and I'll say whether it interests me, for instance.

You can't scroll back a few posts and find it?

Okay, here.

viewtopic.php?t=40592

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52

I linked to a post which has now sat in RR for seven months with no response. Does it spark no theological curiosity?

Evidently not. Any reason why it should? You might link again and I'll have a look and I'll say whether it interests me, for instance.

You can't scroll back a few posts and find it?

Okay, here.

viewtopic.php?t=40592

Totally uninterested. Sorry. Your efforts to try to make a god -claim out of nothing are quite familiar. Trying to rush to conclusions about quantum mechanics before they are really understood is as premature as Kalam or NDEswhich are gap for god -arguments - anything science can't yet explain is supposedly evidence for a god.

But the reason why this stuff is not worth the trouble is even if you could make a case for a creator, that does not tell us which one. And I seem to recall we have had that discussion before and I fail to see why you want to bring it up again.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54

Totally uninterested. Sorry. Your efforts to try to make a god -claim out of nothing are quite familiar. Trying to rush to conclusions about quantum mechanics before they are really understood is as premature as Kalam or NDEswhich are gap for god -arguments - anything science can't yet explain is supposedly evidence for a god.

I founded the case on the available evidence, which is all that can be done with science at any point. You're really just employing an "Appeal to the Future" fallacy, hanging your hope on some material explanation coming about later. Maybe one will (no scientific theory is proof of anything), but even if it does it will just eliminate Russel's argument against cosmic contingency. The rule in science is that the available evidence carries the day.

But the reason why this stuff is not worth the trouble is even if you could make a case for a creator, that does not tell us which one. And I seem to recall we have had that discussion before and I fail to see why you want to bring it up again.

I fail to see why you would want to bring it up again. "Which god?" is really nothing to fall back on since the ultimate source of being isn't required to be limited to any anthropomorphic concept of it. The Tao of Eastern philosophy and Tillich's God-beyond-God recognize the incomprehensibility of the ultimate reality.

“Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.”
---Albert Einstein

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54

Totally uninterested. Sorry. Your efforts to try to make a god -claim out of nothing are quite familiar. Trying to rush to conclusions about quantum mechanics before they are really understood is as premature as Kalam or NDEswhich are gap for god -arguments - anything science can't yet explain is supposedly evidence for a god.

I founded the case on the available evidence, which is all that can be done with science at any point. You're really just employing an "Appeal to the Future" fallacy, hanging your hope on some material explanation coming about later. Maybe one will (no scientific theory is proof of anything), but even if it does it will just eliminate Russel's argument against cosmic contingency. The rule in science is that the available evidence carries the day.

But the reason why this stuff is not worth the trouble is even if you could make a case for a creator, that does not tell us which one. And I seem to recall we have had that discussion before and I fail to see why you want to bring it up again.

I fail to see why you would want to bring it up again. "Which god?" is really nothing to fall back on since the ultimate source of being isn't required to be limited to any anthropomorphic concept of it. The Tao of Eastern philosophy and Tillich's God-beyond-God recognize the incomprehensibility of the ultimate reality.

“Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.”
---Albert Einstein

No and yes, you are wrong in that the unexplained, unproven or unknowns are NOT evidence for a god, Intelligent creator or Cosmic mind. They are simply 'Don't know'. And you can save appeal to authority - even Einstein, aside that he merely meant physics we haven't discovered yet. Even if he did believe in an Intelligent Creator (which is doubtful - he said himself he would be regarded as an atheist) - his discoveries don't make him an oracle or prophet. He rejected Quantum physics; he was wrong.

And yes, fair point that 'which god' is irrelevant to the theism claim of an intelligent creator, not related to any religion. Totally get that. But I don't care, like i said. A Deist god that doesn't interfere, micromanage or dabble in human affairs is academic and matters not.

The god - claim related to organized religion is the only thing that I'm concerned about. If there was no organized religion but only claims of an intelligent creator there would not be a single atheist posting here; we would not need to.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #56

No and yes, you are wrong in that the unexplained, unproven or unknowns are NOT evidence for a god, Intelligent creator or Cosmic mind. They are simply 'Don't know'.

“The physicists assure us that individual quantum transitions in atoms have no cause.”

Russell considered it a "know", though he didn't grasp the implication of it.

And you can save appeal to authority - even Einstein, aside that he merely meant physics we haven't discovered yet. Even if he did believe in an Intelligent Creator (which is doubtful - he said himself he would be regarded as an atheist)

"I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
A.E.

Context is important.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #56

No and yes, you are wrong in that the unexplained, unproven or unknowns are NOT evidence for a god, Intelligent creator or Cosmic mind. They are simply 'Don't know'.

“The physicists assure us that individual quantum transitions in atoms have no cause.”

Russell considered it a "know", though he didn't grasp the implication of it.

And you can save appeal to authority - even Einstein, aside that he merely meant physics we haven't discovered yet. Even if he did believe in an Intelligent Creator (which is doubtful - he said himself he would be regarded as an atheist)

"I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
A.E.

Context is important.

I am well aware of virtual particles or matter/energy that appears to have no cause. But that just pots us in a 'don;t know' position, doesn't it? Does a god (never mind which one) busily create and uncreate darn it, virtual particles or do they appear or disappear out on and into nothing or shall we say a state of not needing to be made or created?

You may recall we discussed this some time ago where I argued that virtual particles suggested that 'nothing' can indeed produce Something, and if one argues that Nothing' is not really nothing, it is nothinglike enough to not need a creator and nor do the particles. No god is necessary.

And thanks for the Einstein quote. The claim that Einstein was a god -believer in either the Christian or Jewish sense was always wrong, and used the term 'God' to mean the workings of physics on a universal and Cosmic scale.

For myself I am agnostic enough to think that such a Cosmic Physics might even have a sort of will, intent and ability for forward planning. But until such an ability is convincingly demonstrated I don't believe in such a claim. Thus I remain as atheist as Einstein, though I do believe in Quantum particles.

Context. Ok Point taken. It's worth reading the Wiki article on Einstein and religion. He called himself an Agnostic and denied he was an atheist

"Einstein said people could call him an agnostic rather than an atheist, stating: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being"

A classy Physicist, but I do not have to agree with him about atheism. He also suggested that the Judeo Christian basis of morals was just fine. I do not have to agree with that, entirely. I would suggest that he and I might agree better on his 'agnosticism' (I am one myself) than he would with a Believer who assured him that his afterlife depended on Believing in particular a personal religion.

A p.s perhaps. That fact that I consider that discussion of a possible Cosmic Mind or debate about Cosmic Origins is futile will not have escaped you. I am no more crusading professional atheist, (not that I have been paid for it a long time) than Einstein was except when Theists bring it up as proof of a god, which it isn't. All I am professionally crusading about is the influence of organised religion on our society, which I gather you are, too. So far as I know, we are on the same side, or ought to be.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #58

You may recall we discussed this some time ago where I argued that virtual particles suggested that 'nothing' can indeed produce Something

And I argued that Nothing can't be tortured into producing Something since 0+0 never equals anything other than 0. That's where the Y2K computer analogy comes in. "Something is produced by Nothing" is a conclusion reached by a system which lacks the capacity to extrapolate beyond its programming.

and if one argues that Nothing' is not really nothing, it is nothinglike enough to not need a creator and nor do the particles. No god is necessary.

Something and Nothing aren't separated by degrees; there's either one or the other.

At some point I'd like for you to elaborate on that "Cosmic Physics might even have a sort of will, intent and ability for forward planning" notion. In the meantime, for the purposes if this discussion, I maintain that the very questions which remain unanswered make theology a worthy pursuit.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #58

You may recall we discussed this some time ago where I argued that virtual particles suggested that 'nothing' can indeed produce Something

And I argued that Nothing can't be tortured into producing Something since 0+0 never equals anything other than 0. That's where the Y2K computer analogy comes in. "Something is produced by Nothing" is a conclusion reached by a system which lacks the capacity to extrapolate beyond its programming.

and if one argues that Nothing' is not really nothing, it is nothinglike enough to not need a creator and nor do the particles. No god is necessary.

Something and Nothing aren't separated by degrees; there's either one or the other.

At some point I'd like for you to elaborate on that "Cosmic Physics might even have a sort of will, intent and ability for forward planning" notion. In the meantime, for the purposes if this discussion, I maintain that the very questions which remain unanswered make theology a worthy pursuit.

we don't know that. And virtual particles suggest something from Nothing (in the sense it doesn't need to be created but just exists) is not to be dismissed out of hand. "We don't know" and Don't know does not make and intelligent Creator the logical default, much as Theists would like it to be.

I have to say again that this is all academic and nothing to do with organized religion which is what atheist activism is really about. The Theists and Creationists and indeed those who argue for 'Something More' (mostly a soul and afterlife) consistently appeal to the earth like condition we are used to as having cosmic validity, which we know isn't the case. Quantum is quite unlike the everyday processes we are used to. Space is not a reliable ol' gravity that keeps us from floating away. Outside the earth is not the air we breathe without even thinking. Kinds give birth to kinds tells us nothing about evolution, but evolution, not creation, is the better theory for origins of life. Science we might say deserved a bit of credit for geting the answers that the Bible seems ignorant of.

The question you asked, in my teens shortly after rejecting the Fundy case after their end of world prediction failed, I thought secondarily about the purpose of life, where there wasn't a God providing meaning. I considered what point there was in living, and the term I had in mind at the time was "I went to the edge and looked over and decided I didn't want to jump. That purely instinctive and personal decision made, I asked 'what do I do with my life?'. The answer was 'whatever you like'. Wow! What a release and opportunity. I had no regrets at all that a god had no plan for me".

The first thought - after the Biblical case had failed - was 'if there is a god, which one is it?' I could not credit that any other religion had the truth (though later I let Buddhism have a crack). The most I could credit even as a theory (hypothesis) was an intelligent nature, the 'God of Einstein'. Or Deist - god, in fact. Much like the one you appear to credit. Does that cover the" Cosmic Physics might even have a sort of will, intent and ability for forward planning" notion. enough? If not, ask further.

The thing is, I am as agnostic about the sortagod - claim as you. I just cannot imagine that a creator that did not need to be crated makes more sense than something from nothing - even before I learned about virtual particles. Even if you push Deist -god as a hypothesis, it is perhaps the best case theism has (maybe the only one, now), but is not a greater probability, even with argument from Fine tuning. It is certainly not a basis for a Faith -claim as being True. Which I hope you don't do, since arguing from GodFaith (residual or acquired) hurts your argument by showing an implicit bias, rather than mine where 'don't know' is the best we can really do.