What is theology?

[marco]

Theology originally meant the study of God. In studying him Christian theologians examine the Bible and make what pass for rational arguments about biblical pronouncements. It is useful to study myths and legends for they often tell tales about man's psychology. But is there any point in pretending to study God when neither believer nor unbeliever has anything concrete to go on?

Why do universities still admit this subject as a serious area of study?

[Danmark]

Well it could also be taken as an example of the ambiguity much loved by oracles. I find nothing that relates to God in the Bible of any consequence; the people offering the information do not have the status to deliver anything profound in that area. The clever observer often attributes more to a work of art than is actually in it.

I am however moved by expressions of human passion, such as David's lament or Christ's terrible awareness that he hangs helpless and alone on a cross.

Yes, and there are other diamonds in the dunghill. There is much that comports well with modern psychological understanding, for example. I see much of the best from Jesus of Nazareth being consistent with the best of Buddhism. Like other great works there is much there that can enoble a person, as well as much that can degrade the spirit.

The most common example of the latter is how frequently those who despise the poor, who fight all government efforts to help them, who argue against public education, cite the Bible as part of their rationale for their selfishness. There are many examples of Jesus angrily attacking this attitude. He rails against the money changers and the hypocrites who use the law as an excuse to avoid helping their own parents. A favorite example, from Matthew 15

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.� 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,� he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8 “‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’�

10 And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.� 12 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?� 13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.� 15 But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.� 16 And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.�
What both amuses me and enrages me is that some Christians apply this to Jews, but do not see they do things like this themselves. They should first remove the log from their own eyes.

[bluethread]

Is suffering fools gladly a requirement? Does it ultimately impact on the correct answer? Or is suffering fools gladly just a matter of social politeness that has nothing to with the correctness of the answer?

You do have a point. I'm not sure how much longer we should continue to put up with the "manmade global climate change" pseudoscience.

I fear that on that subject you seem to be standing with the fools.

A good way to calm your fears is to look at the arguments of the long list of those "fools" who have titles, degrees and credential similar to the other "fools" who tout manmade global climate change. That is my point, simply touting credentials or calling those with whom one disagrees with "fools" does not address the argument. It rests on the fallacy of the appeal to authority combined with Ad Hominem.

[Kenisaw]

Is suffering fools gladly a requirement? Does it ultimately impact on the correct answer? Or is suffering fools gladly just a matter of social politeness that has nothing to with the correctness of the answer?

You do have a point. I'm not sure how much longer we should continue to put up with the "manmade global climate change" pseudoscience.

I fear that on that subject you seem to be standing with the fools.

A good way to calm your fears is to look at the arguments of the long list of those "fools" who have titles, degrees and credential similar to the other "fools" who tout manmade global climate change. That is my point, simply touting credentials or calling those with whom one disagrees with "fools" does not address the argument. It rests on the fallacy of the appeal to authority combined with Ad Hominem.

The globe is warming. That is a fact. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million since 1950. That is a fact. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is a fact. The oceans have risen. That is a fact.

These facts are based on measurements. You can do your own simple CO2 experiment to prove that more CO2 in a jar compared to a jar with regular air will retain more heat when both are put in sunlight.

Why anyone in the world would think that the climate is not changing, or that the climate change is not due to the increase in CO2, or that the increase in CO2 is not due to human usage of fossil fuels, is completely beyond me. It's a level of self-delusion that borders on insanity.

[Danmark]

Is suffering fools gladly a requirement? Does it ultimately impact on the correct answer? Or is suffering fools gladly just a matter of social politeness that has nothing to with the correctness of the answer?

You do have a point. I'm not sure how much longer we should continue to put up with the "manmade global climate change" pseudoscience.

What support do you have for such a ridiculous, dismissive statement? Anything besides your political point of view?
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-w ... R4MyRPyvJE

[H.sapiens]

Is suffering fools gladly a requirement? Does it ultimately impact on the correct answer? Or is suffering fools gladly just a matter of social politeness that has nothing to with the correctness of the answer?

You do have a point. I'm not sure how much longer we should continue to put up with the "manmade global climate change" pseudoscience.

I fear that on that subject you seem to be standing with the fools.

A good way to calm your fears is to look at the arguments of the long list of those "fools" who have titles, degrees and credential similar to the other "fools" who tout manmade global climate change. That is my point, simply touting credentials or calling those with whom one disagrees with "fools" does not address the argument. It rests on the fallacy of the appeal to authority combined with Ad Hominem.

In a review of the book The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe by Michael D. Gordin, David Morrison wrote:

In his final chapter, Gordin turns to the new phase of pseudoscience, practiced by a few rogue scientists themselves. Climate change denialism is the prime example, where a handful of scientists, allied with an effective PR machine, are publicly challenging the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is due primarily to human consumption of fossil fuels. Scientists have watched in disbelief that as the evidence for global warming has become ever more solid, the deniers have been increasingly successful in the public and political arena. … Today pseudoscience is still with us, and is as dangerous a challenge to science as it ever was in the past. [Morrison, David. Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 37.2, March/April 2013].

The realities are here:

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight- ... cientists/

and here:

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Danmark]

I'm not sure how much longer we should continue to put up with the "manmade global climate change" pseudoscience.
I fear that on that subject you seem to be standing with the fools.

A good way to calm your fears is to look at the arguments of the long list of those "fools" who have titles, degrees and credential similar to the other "fools" who tout manmade global climate change. That is my point, simply touting credentials or calling those with whom one disagrees with "fools" does not address the argument. It rests on the fallacy of the appeal to authority combined with Ad Hominem.

As has been pointed out to you, it isn't the 'list of degrees,' but what the degrees mean that counts. Simply saying 'there are degreed people on both sides' means nothing. It is the data that counts and the data overwhelmingly says your political feeling about the issue is not supported by the facts. There also is overwhelming consensus among the relevant scientists. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Whether it is climate change denial or denial of evolution or other firmly grounded scientific facts, it is always political and religious conservatives who are in the vanguard of science denial and always they are motivated by ideology and religion rather than facts. This attitude only serves to further discredit both the religion the ideology that drive this nonsense.

[bluethread]

I'm not sure how much longer we should continue to put up with the "manmade global climate change" pseudoscience.
I fear that on that subject you seem to be standing with the fools.

A good way to calm your fears is to look at the arguments of the long list of those "fools" who have titles, degrees and credential similar to the other "fools" who tout manmade global climate change. That is my point, simply touting credentials or calling those with whom one disagrees with "fools" does not address the argument. It rests on the fallacy of the appeal to authority combined with Ad Hominem.

As has been pointed out to you, it isn't the 'list of degrees,' but what the degrees mean that counts. Simply saying 'there are degreed people on both sides' means nothing.

As I pointed out, it is the arguments, not the degrees or size of the list that counts. It appears that you agree with the point I was making when I applied H.sapien's appeal to authority combined with Ad Hominem to his own sacred cow. Thank you, for supporting my point and joining H.sapien in showing the reaction one gets when one points out the those fallacies. Therefore, pointing out such fallacies is profitable, because it can draw out actual arguments. It is best for both sides of an argument to "suffer fools", rather than just blowing off those with whom one disagrees, as H.sapien suggests. That said, I really did not intend on turning a thread on the nature of theology into a "climate change" thread. So, we can leave that argument for another thread.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 57 by bluethread]

Returning back to the topic and accepting the reality that we as a nation have already decided that public education will be retained for the betterment of our society(if you disagree name one first world country without public education).


Strictly from a purely pro vs con perspective:

What benefits does studying theology provide compared with studying in areas of science?

[H.sapiens]

I'm not sure how much longer we should continue to put up with the "manmade global climate change" pseudoscience.
I fear that on that subject you seem to be standing with the fools.

A good way to calm your fears is to look at the arguments of the long list of those "fools" who have titles, degrees and credential similar to the other "fools" who tout manmade global climate change. That is my point, simply touting credentials or calling those with whom one disagrees with "fools" does not address the argument. It rests on the fallacy of the appeal to authority combined with Ad Hominem.

As has been pointed out to you, it isn't the 'list of degrees,' but what the degrees mean that counts. Simply saying 'there are degreed people on both sides' means nothing.

As I pointed out, it is the arguments, not the degrees or size of the list that counts. It appears that you agree with the point I was making when I applied H.sapien's appeal to authority

It is evident that you do not know what an appeal to authority and how to differentiate between its valid and invalid forms. Please permit me to help you out with a brief summary concerning the appeal to authority so that you will not continue to embarrass yourself, at least on this score: According to wiki:

The argument is a defeasible argument and a statistical syllogism taking the form:
X is an expert on subject Y,
X claims A. (A is within subject Y.)
A is probably true. [Walton, Douglas (Douglas Neil), (2008-01-01). Informal logic : a pragmatic approach. Cambridge University Press].

The argument can lead to an informal fallacy when misused [J., Gensler, Harry (2010-01-01). The A to Z of logic. Scarecrow]. One must be careful not to consider an appeal to authority to be proof of any claim. [Haight, Mary (2003). The Snake and the Fox: An Introduction to Logic. pp. 32–33].

The valid form of argument is one in which a recognized and knowledgeable authority on the relevant subject is appealed to by citing a statement by that authority. This is a form of inductive reasoning in that the conclusion is not logically certain, but likely [H., Salmon, Merrilee (2013-01-01). Introduction to logic and critical thinking. Wadsworth]. Examples include following the treatments prescribed by a medical doctor, or citing a respected author to establish claims of fact in a written work [ibid].

The invalid form of the argument occurs when the presumed authority appealed to is compromised in some way; such as being an expert in the wrong subject or is giving views from one side of an active controversy [ibid]. Some examples of this are citing a popular astrophysicist for claims about molecular biology; an Olympic athlete's endorsement of a product they do not use [Hansen, Hans, "Fallacies", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)] or a long retired professor's claims about a current debate in their field. This forms an informal fallacy because the first proposition is untrue [H., Salmon, Merrilee (2013-01-01). Introduction to logic and critical thinking. Wadsworth].

As you can see, the length of the lists is, while not definitive, of some import ... as long as all those on the list are real authorities and not simply people who let their brains fall out by trying to keep too open a mind.

combined with Ad Hominem to his own sacred cow.

There is no need to capitalize ad hominem, though italics are still called for in some style manuals but are eschewed [e.g.,Chicago Manual of Style and Scientific Style and Format] in others. To further confuse things, some like the The Auk, published by The American Ornithologists' Union, are quite specific with regard to using italics: "Only the following Latin terms should be italicized: in vivo, in vitro, in utero, in situ, ad libitum, a priori, and a posteriori. All other Latin terms (except scientific names) should be left unitalicized." The Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors also insists that in vivo and in vitro should be set in italics. None, that I know of, mirror your style.

More to the point, there was no ad hominem proposed. Forgive my waxing pedantic, but I think it best to leave the trivial exercise of looking it up to you; that way you will better understand and remember your error.

Thank you, for supporting my point and joining H.sapien in showing the reaction one gets when one points out the those fallacies.

Before one attempts to point out logical fallacies it is highly recommended that one understand what they are and how they work. You got some 'splanin' to do Lucy.

Therefore, pointing out such fallacies is profitable, because it can draw out actual arguments.

Only when one understands the nature of the fallacies. I recommend to you that you study a bit and then, perhaps, we may try again.

It is best for both sides of an argument to "suffer fools", rather than just blowing off those with whom one disagrees, as H.sapien suggests.

Not when the argument in question is one that has been previously been falsified repeatedly and when the supporting accusations are all but illiterate. That is not the time to call a "spade" and "entrenching tool."

That said, I really did not intend on turning a thread on the nature of theology into a "climate change" thread. So, we can leave that argument for another thread.

Sure you did, and now (in true Trump fashion) you'd like to get of the hole you dug yourself into by ducking your own pirating of the topic. That brings to mind the boy who killed his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan. Man-up and take responsibility for you own actions.

[Danmark]

I'm not sure how much longer we should continue to put up with the "manmade global climate change" pseudoscience.
I fear that on that subject you seem to be standing with the fools.

A good way to calm your fears is to look at the arguments of the long list of those "fools" who have titles, degrees and credential similar to the other "fools" who tout manmade global climate change. That is my point, simply touting credentials or calling those with whom one disagrees with "fools" does not address the argument. It rests on the fallacy of the appeal to authority combined with Ad Hominem.

As has been pointed out to you, it isn't the 'list of degrees,' but what the degrees mean that counts. Simply saying 'there are degreed people on both sides' means nothing.

As I pointed out, it is the arguments, not the degrees or size of the list that counts. It appears that you agree with the point I was making when...

Not in the least. What you wrote, here and elsewhere, was a complete misstatement of that point. you set up a straw man, completely distorting what H. Sapiens said, then you went on to proclaim your position as a science denier.

You avoided the main point of that post:
Whether it is climate change denial or denial of evolution or other firmly grounded scientific facts, it is always political and religious conservatives who are in the vanguard of science denial and always they are motivated by ideology and religion rather than facts. This attitude only serves to further discredit both the religions and the ideologies that drive this nonsense.