Theology: fact, or opinion

[Blastcat]

Hi folks!

Your friendly neighborhood gadfly here!

I've been asking theists in here ( ok, mostly Christians of all kinds ) if what they talk about are FACTS or OPINIONS?

I almost never seem to get replies to these questions.

When it comes to this theology subforum, for example, people will debate ENDLESSLY about what a Biblical passage is SUPPOSED to mean, what a word in the Bible means, and so on. Raging debates, never any seem to be resolved.

And I read these.. as an outsider to the debate.
There doesn't seem to BE a right answer.

So, the question for debate is:

Is theology merely discussions about opinions, or are they about facts?

Follow up questions might be:

IF theology is about facts, who has the CORRECT facts, and who is wrong? It seems that everyone is claiming they are right, and that anyone not in agreement is wrong.. OR WORSE.. from Satan or something.

To an outsider, theological arguments smack of a rationalization for tribalism.

So, that's 3 questions, really ..

1. Is theology merely about opinions?
2. If theology is about facts, how are we to tell fact from opinion in this case and
3. Is theology putting a justification for "us against them" thinking?

[marco]

If God is able to communicate and we are able to know him - then we can discern fact from opinion based on what he has communicated to us.

Revelation is a claim made by all religious groups. If we base theology on revelation we have to establish which revelations come from a truthful source. One would suppose that the revealer would make this obvious - but he doesn't.

My view is that self-righteousness and pride are the main problems of peacefully co-existing in a multi-cultural society - whether the person happens to be a theist or an atheist.

Multiculturalism is a misguided attempt to be nice to all, regardless of how barbarous their practices. Had we adopted this benign outlook in the past, people would still be eating people. It is sensible to direct some societies in the direction of being reasonably behaved, which is possibly what Christ was doing.

[dakoski]

[Replying to marco]

Revelation is a claim made by all religious groups. If we base theology on revelation we have to establish which revelations come from a truthful source.

Yeah I agree.

Multiculturalism is a misguided attempt to be nice to all, regardless of how barbarous their practices. Had we adopted this benign outlook in the past, people would still be eating people. It is sensible to direct some societies in the direction of being reasonably behaved, which is possibly what Christ was doing.

There's a distinction between multiculturalism as an empirical reality (for example, where I was brought up in London its an empirical reality that is undeniable) and multiculturalism as an ideology (the latter I think is tangential to the discussion).

I was simply stating I'm unconvinced in the dream of no religion resulting in the world living in peace. I think the source of much discontent between groups is really blaming the other for our problems.

So my point was simply regarding given the empirical reality of multiculturalism - how best do we peacefully coexist? I agree that we need to debate and come to consensus on certain common values within a society.

But I think we also ought to be able discuss our differences openly. That we can respectfully articulate why we hold a particular view and disagree with another view. Whilst also valuing the right of others to hold views that we disagree upon.

[marco]

There's a distinction between multiculturalism as an empirical reality (for example, where I was brought up in London it's an empirical reality that is undeniable) and multiculturalism as an ideology (the latter I think is tangential to the discussion).

Of course I was referring to the ideology and I would imagine that one depends heavily on the other. But yes, it is possibly irrelevant to the OP.

I was simply stating I'm unconvinced in the dream of no religion resulting in the world living in peace. I think the source of much discontent between groups is really blaming the other for our problems.

The source? - greed, ambition, hatred, lust, jealousy, pride, brutality. But I agree that religion's departure wouldn't necessarily herald a dawn of peace. Far from it.

But I think we also ought to be able discuss our differences openly. That we can respectfully articulate why we hold a particular view and disagree with another view. Whilst also valuing the right of others to hold views that we disagree upon.

That is the ideal and among reasonable people with a modicum of intelligence it should not be a pipe-dream. But we tend to love our beliefs to the death, especially to the death of others, and it is hard to persuade those that would murder for what they think is true that moderation is best.

In history, peace has invariably come out of the mouths of cannons - sadly. The Pax Romana that was in many ways commendable for such a vast empire was installed by harshness. Caesar sliced off the hands of Gauls who rose in revolt.

But of course I agree entirely with your prayer. If only there were a God to facilitate its reality instead of guns.

[dakoski]

[Replying to marco]

That is the ideal and among reasonable people with a modicum of intelligence it should not be a pipe-dream. But we tend to love our beliefs to the death, especially to the death of others, and it is hard to persuade those that would murder for what they think is true that moderation is best.

That is one theory - that the extremes are the problem so we should seek moderation in all things. And yeah largely I agree.

The view of inter-group/intercultural conflict I was drawing from was social identity. Which argues that we draw our identity from contrasting ourselves with other groups in a way that puts us in a positive light.

There's lots of empirical evidence to show we have a tendency towards self-deception in how we compare our group with others in order to enhance our self- esteem and identity.It might be the case that we are the peace loving group and others are the murderers. But its also important to be aware that we are highly prone to self-deception and not necessarily making neutral contrasts.

We only have to look at the culture wars in the US or the conflict between remainers and leavers over Brexit - to see how easily we demonise one another.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 20 by dakoski]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Assuming that others are assuming.[/center]

Is theology merely about opinions?

This depends on your starting assumptions:
a) If God doesn't exist then of course its simply opinions - as Dan Barker would say theology is a 'subject without an object'

But why would any critical thinker ASSUME that a god doesn't exist?

b) If there is a God but it cannot or will not communicate with human beings - then again theology is simply opinions

Why assume THAT?

c) If God exists and is able to communicate with human beings - then God is knowable. If this is the case then knowledge as opposed to mere opinion is possible. Though I don't think anyone who holds this assumption would claim to have absolute knowledge of God in the same way that those who hold the assumption that our world is knowable would not claim to have absolute knowledge of the world we live in.

There maybe other ways of answering the question but I imagine these are the main ways.

I think that what you are saying is that theology is based on ASSUMING that what it needs to prove is true, then pretend to have proved it's true.

As an agnostic, of course I don't assume ANYTHING whatsoever about any god... Not for, not against, NADA. God could be an especially clever bunny for all I know.

Questions of whether God exists or is knowable have been debated likely as long as humans have been around.

I would elaborate on that a bit.. I would say that the question of the truth of god beliefs has been around since the CONCEPT of gods has been around.

It's a FACT that the concept of gods exist.. what people OPINE about is if the concept has any merit.

Theology SURE has opinions about that, doesn't it?
Does theology have any FACTS about the existence of any gods?

Any theology, any gods?

These are foundational questions about the ultimate source of life and reality. I don't think foundational questions like these can be objectively 'proven' in the way other questions can (e.g. what I had for breakfast this morning).

So, are you saying that theology deals with subjective truths about people's opinions as opposed to objective truths about reality?

If theology is about facts, how are we to tell fact from opinion in this case

Again, depends on your assumptions.

I'm NOT a theologian, I'm an AGNOSTIC.. so I don't OWN any assumptions about gods.. remember?

Of course as before if you don't think God exists, or if God exists but is not able to communicate with us then of course all we have is opinion by definition.

You seem to be assuming that I'm assuming.
Is that an opinion or a fact?

If God is able to communicate and we are able to know him - then we can discern fact from opinion based on what he has communicated to us.

Well , if you SUPPOSE that that God is perfect.. then IF he exists, and IF he communicates, then he would communicate PERFECTLY. He doesn't SEEM to be perfectly communicating to the OUTSIDERS.

That wouldn't be OUR fault, now, would it?
I'll open that door if he KNOCKS ON IT.. how about that dealio?

How about that perfect communicator communicate with Blastcat?
Hello God.. is anybody OUT there?
You can come out from hiding now... I'm a grown up and yes, God, I'm really PLEADING for you to stop playing Hide and God Seek. ( not a typo.. I thought it was clever ... hide and god seek... get it ? )

Is theology putting a justification for "us against them" thinking?

I'm not sure how it logically follows from your argument that theology is a justification for 'us against them' thinking.

It's NOT an argument, it's a question. But I can MAKE an argument.
That wasn't really my intention.. my intention was to gather other people's opinions.

Look, there are COMPETING theologies, yes?

Apologists tell one another that they have a truer god than the other guys?
All religions seem to think they have the one true ring to rule them all?

Do YOU believe that your beliefs are better than other people's beliefs?
OR do you believe that your beliefs are JUST as true as their beliefs?

Are all beliefs ( no matter WHAT they are ) JUST AS TRUE?

If we cannot TELL what religion is TRUER than another one... then .. it's all good.
Potatoes and oranges are all the same too.

Up is the same as down.
Your god, their gods, whatever man... it's all true.

Spiderman and the Flying Spaghetti Monster and alien visitations.

What do you say theology tries to DO?

I think really you're asking how do we peacefully co-exist in diverse multi-worldview, multi-cultural societies?

Well, no, I'm not at all asking that.

I'm specifically asking about the purpose and the consequences of theology. Does theology try to enhance religious differences or try to enhance humanistic values? On this planet, we SHARE one humanity.. all humans are of the SAME species. But not ALL humans SHARE the same theology.

There are THOUSANDS of theologies. Theologians DO argue about their god concepts , and have done so for millenia...

I KNOW that many religions ( to their credit ) include HUMANISTIC values, but what do GOD beliefs - the THEOS in THEOLOGY - have to do with HUMANS? Some religions have just started to REPAIR some of the DAMAGE that they have caused for millenia, to which I say, GOOD FOR THEM !

It's about time.
They are starting to solve the many problems that they have helped to CREATE in the first place. It's about TIME that people stop WARING over their gods, and that, once and for ALL...

Theology does NOT study humans, but these GOD beliefs.. god beliefs that they seem to think have something to do with REALITY. And they THINK that their god beliefs has something to do with reality because as you say.. OF THEIR ASSUMPTIONS.

They assume what they would like to believe and then ARGUE about it with others.
But what are they ARGUING about?

Are they arguing with each other and demonizing one another and warring with one another about FACTS or OPINIONS?

Can theology/religion lead to 'us against them' thinking? Absolutely I agree it can - theology can lead to incredible self-righteousness. However, I don't think theists are alone in such pride and self-righteousness.

Good.. finally a clear answer to question 3.
Thank you. ( I think that makes you first )

It wasn't all my intention of implying that ONLY theists can have faults.
I was asking about theology, and theology alone.

I happen to agree with your answer. In my opinion, theology HAS and in all too many cases, still DOES lead to "us against them thinking"... Or "Demonizing the enemy". All too many Christians in here ASSAULT each other by telling each other they are UNRIGHTEOUS or "demonic" or threatening each other with some form of "hell" for not believing the same brand of religion.

I don't make this kind of thing up.. I hope that I'm not revealing to you something that you didn't already know.

So you DO agree that like politics, theology CAN lead us into even very heated disagreements. To me, theology is like the "party line". DIVISIVE... One party against the other party. In the case of religions, MANY parties against MANY parties.

The more theology we HAVE, the more disagreements we seem to be able to have about them. But UNLIKE politics, theology has yet to PROVE that their disagreements have anything to DO with the real world. Politics, at least ATTEMPTS to discuss real world problems like pollution, global warming, wars, and so on. They aren't debating if ( other than the denialists ) IF there are problems to face, but HOW to go about facing them.

In theology, have these problems been proven to exist?
Does God exist? Has this been established?
Does sin exist?
Adam and Eve?
Heaven?
Hell?

You get the picture, right?
Thousands of theologists.. thousands of what.. facts or opinions?

One of the core theological concepts is God. So.. is god a FACT, or an opinion?

If we take your question as an assumption that theology is a justification of tribalism and 'us and them' thinking.

I don't know why you assume that I'm assuming.
I'm interpreting some facts ... like religious wars... and the fantastic diversity of religious experiences.. and can clearly see, and can easily make a case for a correlation to tribalism.

If I AM making assumptions that I am not aware of, could you PLEASE be specific. I very much want to CORRECT errors. I don't claim to be perfect.. but sometimes, Blastcat be WRONG.

But Blastcat no like vague accusations that aren't at all justified in any way.
You get Grrrr or Meow.. take your pick.

Then surely religious people who engage in theology are the problem.

I don't agree.

THE PROBLEM?

I think that would be a painfully fallacious over-generalization.

In the OP, if you recall, I am basically asking what theology studies. I specifically asked if theology studies opinions about beliefs or some facts that they believe in. Come to think of it, I've just now made my OP a little bit clearer. In communication, at least for this imperfect communicator, it's really "try, try, again".

I would say that for example, GEOLOGY studies facts about the planet. There are REAL, FACTUAL rocks out there to study.

In THEOLOGY, on the other hand, what FACTS are they studying? ... Where are the "theological" equivalent to geological ROCKS?

Theists point to gods that I cannot SEE... sorry.
I see lots and lots of rocks.

I think it's pretty safe to say that THEOLOGY depends on a set of religious beliefs. I take the proposition "God exists" as a religious belief. THEN, theology comes around to make SENSE out of those beliefs. No religious beliefs of any kind, no theology of any kind. So the PROBLEM might just BE the religious beliefs to begin with. But MAYBE the theologians compound the problem.

I would say that most if not all theologians are honest folk. But what are they studying.. fact or opinion is my question.

Further, isn't the solution then that these people who don't think like you become more like you? Is that not also a form of 'us against them' tribalism?

Thank you for the great question.

I think it would be VERY important for me to question my own beliefs FIRST.
I would NOT want to put myself into an IRONIC position.

I don't want to be contradicting myself.
I think your question is not only fair, but necessary for me to address.

I don't want to simply ASSUME what I want to demonstrate, after all.


So, yes.
In a way, I am promoting a form of tribalism. You are quite right. Let's call it the tribe of "Blastcatism", population, 1, with a bullet.

In essence, I am saying that "my tribe is better than your tribe".

I DO happen to believe that my humanistic, critical thinking, atheistic, agnostic, taoistic, poetic, humorous, curly haired, sexy as all get out tribe is way better than a non humanistic, non critical thinking, non atheistic, non agnostic, non taoistic ( in my sense of the word ), non poetic, non humorous, non curly haired, non sexy as all get out tribe.

But that's just my OPINION.

GOOOO Blastcat's tribe ! BOOO HISS the other tribes !!!!

So, yeah, I promote Blastcat's way of thinking...

Now.. are you a member of my tribe or not?
Do you support humanistic values?
Do you think that critical thinking is a good way to decide opinion from facts?
Do you believe that the scientific method has any merit?

ARE you a taoist the way that Blastcat is a taoist? ( rhetorical question.. only Blastcat is a taoist the way that Blastcat is a taoist, I can assure you )

So, yeah, lets DO discuss what "tribe" is the better tribe.
Let's DO discuss how to discuss beliefs and knowledge, and how to tell the difference between opinions and facts.

That's MY tribe...
i can also guarantee you that in MY tribe, we try our best to REASON as well as we can. And critical thinking isn't INTO demonizing those outside the tribe. Most critical thinkers don't BELIEVE in demons.

To critical thinkers, it's not us AGAINST them, it's us AND them.
Youre either a critical thinker or your NOT.

So, do you want to be in the critical thinking tribe or ... those other tribes?
Your choice. Maybe you are all ready a member.

Declare your allegiance!

My view is that self-righteousness and pride are the main problems of peacefully co-existing in a multi-cultural society - whether the person happens to be a theist or an atheist.

I don't think it's very useful to introduce the concept "self-rightenousness" into theism OR atheism.. both are about beliefs in gods, anything ELSE might be theology... Im not sure that's a fact, but it sure is my opinion.

But let me be as clear as I can possibly be about my position:

I DO NOT SAY THAT ONLY THEISTS CAN BE WRONG.

So, we agree that theology fosters divisions.
Now, I would LOVE to have your opinion about questions 1 and 2..

1. Is theology merely about opinions?
2. If theology is about facts, how are we to tell fact from opinion in this case?

[Peds nurse]

What I was referring to was how two opposite things cannot be the same at the same TIME.. youre a little confused. When I say X X , I mean at the very same time.. in your example, the tree wasn't in the same TIME... one in summer.. one in fall and so on... NOT THE SAME TIME, Peds.

I know that it isn't at the same time, but it is the same tree! Have not people interpreted what the Bible means at different times in their lives, as well as over a long period of time? Isn't that exactly what we try to discern on this forum?

Right now, I can plainly see that you are confused about subjective reality and objective reality. And how X X .

I will be honest, I have no idea what that equation refers to in relation to this topic.

Another way of putting that is that you are confused between fact and fiction, fact and fantasy.. fact and dream.. hope.. faith.. desire.. fact and ANYTHING other than fact. You seem utterly confused as to the difference between fact and OPINION.

I have no idea how you come to that conclusion! People can look at a tree at different times and obtain different data. People can look at the Bible over different periods of time and draw different conclusions. How is that confusing to you?

You seem confused about logic.

It is illogical to disagree with you?

But we would ALL agree that the tree is either REAL or FANTASY... if we all agree that a real tree is happening... then we say that it's a FACT. If some of us don't see a tree.. but can imagine a tree and so forth.. that tree might NOT be factually real.

Now...who is being confused? The Bible is real, there are several million copies available. We are not talking about God being real, we are talking about theology being real or opinion. If the Bible isn't real, then there clearly could not be a theology, making your argument invalid.

The Pope?
Yourself?

Blastcat?

I would say, all of the above.

Then you are talking about a subjective truth and not an objective truth.

If something is said to be true OF THE PERSON.. that's called a subjective truth.
Do you see any difference between a subjective truth and an objective one?

If everyone can have a different personal "truth" about something, it's said to be subjective. Does that help?

If everyone can verify something is true, like the shape of the world, that would be an OBJECTIVE truth. Help you?

It helps when it comes to somethings, but when it comes to theology being fact or opinion, it really isn't as clear.

It is also true that 5+5, 9+1, 6+4, 7+3, all equal 10.

That's more like it.
10 = 10 no matter how we write 10. In math, the expression 5+5 is IDENTICAL to 10, that's why we use the EQUAL sign ... "=".

5+6 = 10
5+6 does NOT equal to 10

Not in math.
Math is a LOGICAL system.

But maybe your point is that theology is illogical.
I would agree with that.

No BC, my point is that there isn't just one equation that equals the number 10. In theology, many different equations equal God.

When you define theology as the study of God....

I have to ask if you think that theology is in the business of studying an actual God or opinions about a God that theologians have to first ASSUME is an actual God?

Does that question make sense to you?
Does theology worry about the truth of the beliefs at all?

Isn't this your thread? I would assume that you are wanting to know, not the validity of God, but of theology. If the question arises to know whether theology is based on fact or opinion, then there has to be a possibility that it can be based on fact, or the question wouldn't be asked.

[marco]

We only have to look at the culture wars in the US or the conflict between remainers and leavers over Brexit - to see how easily we demonise one another.

Burns expressed it well:

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:

But we must also resist the liberal tendency to debase ourselves in the hope that, in doing so, we will endear ourselves to Attila. Know thyself is perhaps our best course.

[McCulloch]

In spite its name, theology is not the study of God. God is ineffable, unknowable. Theology is therefore merely the study of what people have said about God.

Theology has two types of things which could be reasonably and rationally be called truth:

1. Incompatibilities
   John Calvin, for example, claimed that Christ atoned only for the sins of the elect. Other Christian theologians contradict him and claim that Christ died for all.
2. Negatives
   Most statements in the form of God isn't or God doesn't are irrefutable.

[marco]

In spite its name, theology is not the study of God. God is ineffable, unknowable.

That statement may well be one of the axioms of a theologian, but what God is or isn't; where God is or isn't; how God is and what he does; how we are affected by God being there or not being there: this is theology's area and it is quite certainly the study of God. It may well be a useless study, a vain pursuit, but those who pursue it think they are dealing with God. What the subject yields depends largely on how accommodating God is and whether he minds his privacy being pried on. The Bible suggests he would not be too happy.

Koestler bequeathed money for studying the paranormal which may have links with theology.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 26 by Peds nurse]



[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Violating the law of non-contradiction.[/center]

What I was referring to was how two opposite things cannot be the same at the same TIME.. youre a little confused. When I say X X , I mean at the very same time.. in your example, the tree wasn't in the same TIME... one in summer.. one in fall and so on... NOT THE SAME TIME, Peds.

I know that it isn't at the same time, but it is the same tree! Have not people interpreted what the Bible means at different times in their lives, as well as over a long period of time? Isn't that exactly what we try to discern on this forum?

It's the same tree, but not at the same time, Peds.

This messed up logical discussion started with this statement of yours.. now read carefully when you say at the same time.. and then you use an example that is not at the same time.

Your example uses two different times:

"Two things can be true at the same time, especially when it comes to explaining an object or thing. If I looked at my trees in the summer, I would say they have beautiful green leaves. If someone else looked at my trees in the winter, they would say that they have no leaves at all, but are completely bare. Both interpretations are correct, based on the season of which one experiences them."


So, in order for your logic to work, summer and winter would have to happen at the same time. And that, Peds, makes no sense to me.

Sorry...

That's one of the reasons why I said you were confused.
But that's not the only reason I think so.