• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Atheists, quit confusing the two.

I don't see the difference.

Christianity and Islam have many followers today, Greek Paganism doesn't.

To be fair, I do agree with your point, I just have my own arbitrary way of separating the two in my mind. For the most part they're the same, although theology seems to be a nicer way of saying it. Generally any teachings I've had in Mythology have dealt only about religions in the beginnings of human history that have long since died out, so that's probably where I got the separation.
 
The OP is wrong.

Science is the study of reality, of nature.

There is nothing apart from nature, nothing 'supernatural', nothing that is off-limits for science.

Complexity arrives at a non complex answer, as usual...Good stuff, I agree.
 
Yes

Don't know what that is


Yes

The point being thus: The OP opened with a suggestion that theology provides knowledge of ethics, morals and whatever else supposedly isn't in the realm of science. (I paraphrase). I obliquely suggested that it's a fool's errand, since theology is just intellectual wankery. It may have important literary or historical value, such as with Augustine and Aquinas, but it has about as much chance of offering good moral lessons as any other literature.

That's all I was trying to say.
The evidence directed unknowable is the unknowable there is some evidence might exist. It might be that there is something outside the Universe and/or that something existed before the BB. There is at least some logic supporting these hypotheses as opposed to purely imagined thought gods exist but are undetectable.

As for the ethics/morals and so on that are also supposedly outside the realm of science, I'm lean heavily toward natural biology explaining that stuff as well. I realize philosophers love to think their field is meaningful and I suppose it is to them and other people. I tend to be a more strict biology explanationist. I'm not saying we have no free will. I don't know the answer to that question yet. But if you ask me about morality I look to the evidence of how morals evolved and believe biology and genetics explains morality better than contemplation.

From my perspective, the biological criteria we judge these esoteric things by are being used, but just sometimes outside the realm of conscious thought. My question to philosophers is, if these things are outside the realm of science, then explain what they are without including the biological brain.
 
Christianity and Islam have many followers today, Greek Paganism doesn't.

To be fair, I do agree with your point, I just have my own arbitrary way of separating the two in my mind. For the most part they're the same, although theology seems to be a nicer way of saying it. Generally any teachings I've had in Mythology have dealt only about religions in the beginnings of human history that have long since died out, so that's probably where I got the separation.
Just an FYI for those people who don't realize the world's populations are not all Judeo-Christian.

Religious Adherents is a website with one of the best data bases I've seen for how many people believe which religions.

Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents

6% of the world's population are identified as "Primal Indigenous".
primal-indigenous: Alternatively termed "tribal religionists, "ethnic religionists," or "animists," estimates range from 100 million to 457 million. (457 million is the combined total for "Ethnoreligionists," "Animists," and "Shamanists" from Barrett's 2001 world religion calculations. But this total includes all African Traditional religionists, which we have listed as a separate category.) This group also includes, but is not limited to, people whose native religion is a form of shamanism or paganism (such as millions of people in traditional Siberian shamanist cultures). Obviously this is broad classification, not a single religion. This grouping includes thousands of distinct religious traditions, mostly the religious-cultural worldviews of peoples who have been grouped together in one category because they are pre-literate or less advanced technologically than Western/European cultures. There are similarities among many primal-indigenous religions/cultures, such as use of an oral rather than written canon, and a lack of rigid boundaries between the sacred and secular (profane) aspects of life. But few, if any, generalizations hold for all groups.
Previously, adherents of African traditional religion were grouped here, and many religious statisticians would continue to do so. But adherents of African traditional religions and diasporic derivatives are currently listed ennumerated separately on this page. [See below.] Most remaining primal-indigenous religionists are in Asia (including India).


And while "Greek Paganism" may be passe, there are between 1 & 3 million people in the world who identify their religion as some kind of Neo-Paganism.
"HOW many Witches, Wiccans and pagans are there? No one knows for sure but we do know that the number is increasing rapidly. Our best estimate here at The Witches' Voice is about 1 million in the U.S. and 3 million worldwide. Adherents.Com estimates about million Neo-pagans worldwide in its list of the world's major religions.
 
Khan said:
It appears theology is also defined as the study of religion and it's influences in general. Given the amount of religions there are in the world I'd say theology has a lot of subjects to study.

It indeed does, if we're talking about the academic field. Among the obvious ones - specific religious dogmas - you get psychology of religion, philosophy of religion, religious ethics, and lots of comparative religion. If someone insists theology isn't within the realm of knowledge, then neither is history or comparative literature, for a few examples.

I'm betting there's a quite a bit of overlap in subjects. One could argue that theology is just a branch of mythology; or that they're one and the same. I generally consider mythology to be the study of ancient religions(Greek Paganism), while theology covers religions that are still popular today(Christianity, Islam). I may be entirely wrong.

No, you're not wrong. That was the basic gist how they made the distinction in my religious studies as well. It's not a rock-solid one, but it's useful.
 
as has already been mentioned by many in this thread: many religions make claims about events within the physical world. Indeed, I can't think of a religion that doesn't. These can range from the age of the earth to the magical abilities of certain of the religion's followers, to the nature of the universe itself. All of these are directly scientific claims. It is definitely within the wheelhouse of skeptics to address these claims.
 
Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.
And neither does Theology.
 
That is a positive assertion that science would demand evidentiary support of,

The lack of evidence for their existence is the evidence that they don't exist. To believe something exists when there is no evidence to suggest it does is irrational.
 
And how do you do this?
When you are hurtling through the air 9,000 metres up at 1,000 km per hour in an aluminum tube or having a philosophical discussion with someone on the other side of the world in real time or looking at photographs from the surface of Mars, it is a little hard to escape the conclusion that there might be something to the epistemic system that made these things happen.
 
Last edited:
Atheists are right-- there is no scientific proof of God.

But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science.

No it isn't. It's a claim about the nature of reality. It's very much scientific.

Even if you ask "do you like chocolate", I'm sure with the right tools of science you could answer it in someone's stead. And science can surely tell us much about ethics.

So this special pleading by you is just an attempt to escape scrutiny for your claims.
 
But they forget that Theology is outside of the realm of Science. Science doesn't tell us what is moral, or ethical, or anything else that may happen to be outside the realm of what science is capable of telling us.

Theologians are no more qualified to do so than anybody else, and should probably stop.

Science is a philosophy of skepticism and empirical evidence, and as such has no ability to explore metaphysical questions, which have nothing to do with skepticism or empirical evidence, and everything to do with subjective experience.

They are simply two different, separate, and exclusive realms of knowledge and thought.

You don't get away by hiding behind "metaphysics". I'd still prefer some evidence rather than the rantings of Bronze Age desert nomads.
 
You don't get away by hiding behind "metaphysics". I'd still prefer some evidence rather than the rantings of Bronze Age desert nomads.


Just to get some things straight here: Much of these rantings are of early and middle Iron Age transcription (though much lifted from earlier sources), and the producers were more settled folk than nomads. Also, not quite so deserty as it is today.
 
Just to get some things straight here: Much of these rantings are of early and middle Iron Age transcription (though much lifted from earlier sources), and the producers were more settled folk than nomads. Also, not quite so deserty as it is today.

Fair enough. They still had brutal and cruel societies and they knew very, very little beyond the necessities of survival and the maintainence of their societies.
 

Back
Top Bottom