John Gray

[A'isha]

I think you are confusing the subjects here. The study of religion is a legitimate field of study like the study of any other phenomena. However, say, Islam theology is not a dispassionate study of Islam.

I think you're the one confusing things.

No, ʿaqīdah and kalām are not dispassionate studies of Islam, but the study of ʿaqīdah and kalām is certainly part of the study of religion that is a legitimate field of study like the study of any other phenomena. One can feel it's important to read about and understand a debate without feeling the need to participate in that debate.

Sure, but would you agree that reading Mein Kampf in another language is ok too?

As long as one is cognizant of the potential pitfalls of reading a translation, yes it's ok too.

You just have to know what the arguments are and how to refute them.

Which is kind of my point.

Dawkins is primarily interested in if there are good reasons to believe in God, not why people do so. They are not the same question.

They are, however, so interlinked that they might as well be.

 

[Dinwar]

Dawkins is primarily interested in if there are good reasons to believe in God, not why people do so. They are not the same question.

I agree that they are different questions, but Dawkins himself said that "The God Delusion" was intended as an argument directed at believers.

And as far as the question of whether gods exist or not is concerned, you are advocating ignoring previous research. I look forward to your explanation for how ignoring research can be considered acceptable, let alone good, research practice. You may consider the previous research invalid, but that can only be a conclusion based on analysis--which you're saying is unnecessary.

Sure, but would you agree that reading Mein Kampf in another language is ok too?

I'll go one step further: if you learn the concepts from a valid secondary source, that's perfectly acceptable. I didn't read Write's work to understand morphospace, nor did I read Darwin to understand evolution. I've never said you have to read the Bible to understand Catholic theology. I just said you have to understand theology in order to argue with theists.

If you want to argue about the existence of God, knowledge of theology isn't really necessary (Quranic arguments are all the argument from design anyways). You just have to know what the arguments are and how to refute them.

As I said before, if you can figure out a way to know the arguments in theology without bothering to learn theology, there's a chap that'll give you a million bucks. Seems he still has it.

 

[tsig]

I've always considered proofs and arguments to have different implications; proofs being the more absolute of the two (I've generally only seen the term used in mathematics, and by the more vapid schools of philosophy). I may have misspoke, however, and can agree to use the terms as synonymous for the purposes of this discussion (assuming, of course, the discussion actually starts).

I've never claimed to know, or even be familiar with, theology. So yet again you are putting words in my mouth. And yet again you are dodging the issue. But since you ask, I'm mostly familiar with Medieval monasticism and the works of the more famous Benedictine monks (the SCA is weird). That's one of the things that demonstrated the error of the view that you don't need to know theology to me--if someone like me, who doesn't pretend to be knowledgeable on the topic, can point to arguments that disprove common atheist arguments, the arguments aren't worth the paper they're written on.

But that's really all beside the point. Last chance: Are you willing to discuss the topic at hand, which is whether or not it's necessary to be familiar with theology IN ORDER TO CONVINCE OTHER PEOPLE?

Since these Medieval monastics theology that disproved atheists arguments are central to your argument you should at least share the ones you found so convincing and the atheist arguments they refuted.

 

[Dinwar]

Since these Medieval monastics theology that disproved atheists arguments are central to your argument you should at least share the ones you found so convincing and the atheist arguments they refuted.

Evasion noted. You have no interest in discussing the topics at hand.

 

[tsig]

Evasion noted. You have no interest in discussing the topics at hand.

The topic is "do you have to be conversant with theology in order to argue with believers", as an example of this you cited your own example where medieval theologians destroyed atheist arguments and this confirmed your point that you had to know theology. It seems logical to ask you what those arguments are and why you found them so persuasive.

 

[A'isha]

There's a good example over in the "Mormonism and Christianity" thread.

 

[Darat]

You mean, besides logic and mathematics?

Not interested in playing silly semantic one-upmanship games.

 

[Darat]

All the more reason to study it--it demonstrates that they don't actually understand their religion. If you can make them look ignorant regarding their beliefs, it's not going to hurt when it comes to convincing them they're wrong. You've already demonstrated that you know more about their belief then them; it's not hard to go from that to "...therefore I know the flaws in it as well".

This is a component of the mental make-up of the best scientists. Darwin did this exhaustively--he knew the opposing side's arguments better than they did, and was able to address them before they arose. We need to do the same thing.

And this I very much disagree with when talking to an individual, their religion is what they believe no matter how close or far it is from their self-identified religion's hierarchy/leadership/official doctrine. I think one comes across as incredibly arrogant to assume that you understand their beliefs better than they do. (Although I have and will continue to use this approach in some discussions when it is appropriate..)

 

[mijopaalmc]

Not interested in playing silly semantic one-upmanship games.

Are you taking your ball and going home, then?

Or do you really think that logic and mathematics don't produce reliable knowledge?

 

[A'isha]

And this I very much disagree with when talking to an individual, their religion is what they believe no matter how close or far it is from their self-identified religion's hierarchy/leadership/official doctrine.

I actually completely agree with this.

 

[Dinwar]

And this I very much disagree with when talking to an individual, their religion is what they believe no matter how close or far it is from their self-identified religion's hierarchy/leadership/official doctrine.

To some extent I can agree; however, it's rather beside the point I was making. Remember, I'm talking about convincing others. If you can show you know the religion they claim to be a member of better than they do, you'll remove one major objection ("You just don't know what you're talking about").

I think one comes across as incredibly arrogant to assume that you understand their beliefs better than they do.

True. However, 1) I've never said anything about assuming, only about demonstrating; and 2) it's not my fault they have committed heresy according to what they claim to believe.

It seems logical to ask you what those arguments are and why you found them so persuasive.

Sic et Non, by Abulard. Enjoy.

 

[Darat]

...snip....I just said you have to understand theology in order to argue with theists.

...snip...

Only on matters of theology, why would you need to know theology (for example) to explain how there is a pun in John that only works in greek?

 

[A'isha]

Only on matters of theology, why would you need to know theology (for example) to explain how there is a pun in John that only works in greek?

I think part of the issue is we're apparently defining "theology" broadly, while you're defining it narrowly.

 

[Darat]

To some extent I can agree; however, it's rather beside the point I was making. Remember, I'm talking about convincing others. If you can show you know the religion they claim to be a member of better than they do, you'll remove one major objection ("You just don't know what you're talking about").

Disagree that it removes that objection, as the adage has it one can't reason out something that reason didn't put in. I think the members of a given religion came to their belief and faith via reason and knowledge of that religion and it's usually esoteric theology will be a very small minority.

True. However, 1) I've never said anything about assuming, only about demonstrating; and 2) it's not my fault they have committed heresy according to what they claim to believe.

...snip...

It can be a useful tool but I think claiming superior knowledge of someone's beliefs and explaining what they "really" believe hardly sets up a good playing field to challenge the person's beliefs.

 

[Belgian thought]

I think part of the issue is we're apparently defining "theology" broadly, while you're defining it narrowly.

- a wide narrow definition. Not an oxymoron in anyway...

Word play, purely word play.

 

[Darat]

I think part of the issue is we're apparently defining "theology" broadly, while you're defining it narrowly.

Perhaps there is a better term. Would it be better to say when you are using the word "theology" you are talking about the doctrine, the dogma and so on rather than the "how many angels can tweet" type of "academic" study that I associate with the word "theology"?

 

[A'isha]

Would it be better to say when you are using the word "theology" you are talking about the doctrine, the dogma and so on rather than the "how many angels can tweet" type of "academic" study that I associate with the word "theology"?

Yes, I think that's it exactly.

(And, as a semi-random aside there are plenty of puns in the Gospels. The one about Peter in Matthew is still my favorite.)

 

[Dinwar]

Only on matters of theology, why would you need to know theology (for example) to explain how there is a pun in John that only works in greek?

Please note that I didn't say you have to know theology in order to argue with Creationists. If you can disprove an idea via another school of thought, that's perfectly fine--provided it's the actual idea, not a cartoon of it. (I'm not saying you're arguing against cartoon versions, just that that's the criteria.)

...as the adage has it one can't reason out something that reason didn't put in.

I don't get the relevance here. One common theist accusation is that atheists don't know theology. We are, to their minds, ignorant of the topic. If you demonstrate that you actually know the topic, but still disagree, they lose that argument.

I think the members of a given religion came to their belief and faith via reason and knowledge of that religion and it's usually esoteric theology will be a very small minority.

I agree. That's one reason I find an understanding of theology to be useful--it demonstrates that the theist themself is ignorant of their religion 9 times out of 10. ANTPogo is a fantastic example of thisconcept in action.

It can be a useful tool but I think claiming superior knowledge of someone's beliefs and explaining what they "really" believe hardly sets up a good playing field to challenge the person's beliefs.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm merely saying that ONE of the reasons to understand theology is in order to demonstrate that they don't actually agree as much with their religion as they think.

The main reason, of course, is to show that you've actually given their side a fair hearing, and have actually considered what they have to say. If you're unwilling to do that, you come off as a beligerant dogmatist, and the conversation shuts down immediately. It's much better to say "Well, I've considered that argument (or a similar one) and here's my response" than to say "That's just theology, and isn't relevant."

Would it be better to say when you are using the word "theology" you are talking about the doctrine, the dogma and so on rather than the "how many angels can tweet" type of "academic" study that I associate with the word "theology"?

I'd say yes, with one caveat.

Sic et Non is a theological text addressing how one should go about considering the problem of God. The Rules of St. Benedict include theological discussions regarding the proper way to live as a monk (remember, monks were attempting to create a slice of Heaven on Earth). Dante's Paradisio includes an overview of some pretty deep theology. Aquinus's proofs, for all their flaws, are a serious attempt at addressing known problems. And so on.

My point is, theology isn't just about doctrine and dogma--it's also about the consequences of doctrine and dogma. It's theory and practice of religious beliefs. To a theist, it's as vibrant and real a field of study as astronomy or theoretical physics, and every bit as practical.

But yeah, the "academic" questions like "How many angels fit on the head of a pin?" aren't included. Some people go a bit nutty, and you can't blame the field for that. Physics has perpetual motion, geology has YEC, theology has angles dancing on pins. The abuse doesn't negate the use.

 

[tsig]

Please note that I didn't say you have to know theology in order to argue with Creationists. If you can disprove an idea via another school of thought, that's perfectly fine--provided it's the actual idea, not a cartoon of it. (I'm not saying you're arguing against cartoon versions, just that that's the criteria.)

I don't get the relevance here. One common theist accusation is that atheists don't know theology. We are, to their minds, ignorant of the topic. If you demonstrate that you actually know the topic, but still disagree, they lose that argument.

I agree. That's one reason I find an understanding of theology to be useful--it demonstrates that the theist themself is ignorant of their religion 9 times out of 10. ANTPogo is a fantastic example of thisconcept in action.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm merely saying that ONE of the reasons to understand theology is in order to demonstrate that they don't actually agree as much with their religion as they think.

The main reason, of course, is to show that you've actually given their side a fair hearing, and have actually considered what they have to say. If you're unwilling to do that, you come off as a beligerant dogmatist, and the conversation shuts down immediately. It's much better to say "Well, I've considered that argument (or a similar one) and here's my response" than to say "That's just theology, and isn't relevant."

I'd say yes, with one caveat.

Sic et Non is a theological text addressing how one should go about considering the problem of God. The Rules of St. Benedict include theological discussions regarding the proper way to live as a monk (remember, monks were attempting to create a slice of Heaven on Earth). Dante's Paradisio includes an overview of some pretty deep theology. Aquinus's proofs, for all their flaws, are a serious attempt at addressing known problems. And so on.

My point is, theology isn't just about doctrine and dogma--it's also about the consequences of doctrine and dogma. It's theory and practice of religious beliefs. To a theist, it's as vibrant and real a field of study as astronomy or theoretical physics, and every bit as practical.
But yeah, the "academic" questions like "How many angels fit on the head of a pin?" aren't included. Some people go a bit nutty, and you can't blame the field for that. Physics has perpetual motion, geology has YEC, theology has angles dancing on pins. The abuse doesn't negate the use.

Yet according to you it achieved it's apogee in the medieval scholastic movement.

 

[!Kaggen]

Getting back to John Gray.....
Recent article on the

Peril of belief - John Gray

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25561810

Any further thoughts on John Gray appreciated.