Theology and Science, cousins?

[LewisWildermuth]

Now why is there all this confusion about how science works when it's basic principals are the same as Theology? Infact most of the scientific methodology grew out of Theology.

Sciences are divided into basic groups for study, but all the groups eventualy bleed over onto one another...

Physics, Mathmatics, Chemestry, Biology, etc. etc.

Theology is divided into basic groups for study but they still all bleed over onto oneanother...

General Theology, Israliology, Biblibal Archeology, Bibliology, Hermeneutics, etc. etc.

Each type of science is then subdivided to allow even more specalized studies...

Biology is divided into...

Evolution- to study of how life changes.
Celular Biology- the study of life at a cellular level.
Abiogenesis(or is it just Biogenesis) How life started.
Anatomy- study of internal organs
Etc. etc...

Each type of Theology is subdivided for better understanding...

General theology is divided into...

Eschatology- study of endtimes, revalations
sotreiology- study of salvation.
Etc. etc

Hypothesis and Theory are used in both

Science: I think this happens, I test, is it still possible? Yes? it now is a theory. No? Back to start.

Theology: I think the verse means this, I test, is it possible? Yes? Theory on interpretation. No? Back to start.

Peer Review is used in both.

Science: Science Journals and College papers.

Theology: Christian Journals (yes they do exist) Christian presses.

Apori is practiced in both.

Science: Biologists don't ask astronomers to test cellular division theories.

Theology: Preterists don't ask PreTrib's to test theories on the endtimes being over already.

Now I may have mixed up a few catagories ir definitions, but I am not a Theologist or Scientist so forgive me.

 

[bartleby]

sorry, i'm new here, but i keep on seeing the term "Apori" all over the place and I'm confused as to what it means. is it 'aporia' in the Derridian sense (ie. An insoluble contradiction or paradox in a text's meanings.)? or is it 'a priori' in the common philosophical sense of 'derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience'? or is it a third term my ignorance fails me on?
sorry to post off topic but am curious.
thanks in advance,
bb

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by bartleby
sorry, i'm new here, but i keep on seeing the term "Apori" all over the place and I'm confused as to what it means. is it 'aporia' in the Derridian sense (ie. An insoluble contradiction or paradox in a text's meanings.)? or is it 'a priori' in the common philosophical sense of 'derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience'? or is it a third term my ignorance fails me on?
sorry to post off topic but am curious.
thanks in advance,
bb

Definition of: a priori
a priori: From what goes before; from cause to effect.

This might also help...
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/philo/words.htm

Basicaly Creationist clame science does this...

This is what I think the cause is {insert whatever here}
I find this evidence and that proves my preconcived cause.

And while that sometimes is true, more often it is just the opposite.

This is what I see I think the cause is this {whatever}
I find evidence that this is/isnot the cause.

But many Creationists do practice a priori...

God did it this way, if I interpret the evidence right it proves my Belief.

Hope that helps...

 

[LewisWildermuth]

What? No one else is going to reply to this? Am I right or am I wrong and why?

 

[Thunderchild]

Being that theology and science both search for and acknowledge empirical truths, they must be considered "cousins" I guess.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
What? No one else is going to reply to this? Am I right or am I wrong and why?

Wrong, IMNSHO. Well I am blunt.

Theology can not be proven, ever. I talk to a Hindu, he is convinced he is right. I talk to a Muslim ditto. I talk to a Christian yep, the same. I talk to ....

To read a book to extract it's correct meaning is not science. The basic doctrines are established. Say Christianity. You accept Jesus. You accept Satan, as his arch enemy. You accept the Yin-Yang principle of good versus evil. You accept Revelation as a prophetic book. You accept the Holy Spirit. And so on.

If you meant theology as study between religions then you still will never find proof. Every religion requires believe; and that is simply too far removed from science.

Why not make theology a cousin of philosophy?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

My piont was that some Christians write how that science uses bad methodology and the like. They also say that Christian methodology is so much better. I just wanted to show that they are alike in many ways in how they look for truth. The major differenct ths the questions, Science asks how things work, Christianity asks why. There is the difference and what a large difference it can make in what you see.

But I believe that Religion is lost without some science and if you try to interject religoin into science it becomes lost.

 

[Blackhawk]

"Theology can not be proven, ever. I talk to a Hindu, he is convinced he is right. I talk to a Muslim ditto. I talk to a Christian yep, the same. I talk to .... "

science can never be proven either. So what? We hav to believe in some things without them being proved right. WE do it all the time of course. But if you want to get really down to it in a skeptical way we can't prove we know anything. So we can't know anything.

"To read a book to extract it's correct meaning is not science."

true but i do not see that anyone said it was.

"The basic doctrines are established. Say Christianity. You accept Jesus. You accept Satan, as his arch enemy. You accept the Yin-Yang principle of good versus evil. You accept Revelation as a prophetic book. You accept the Holy Spirit. And so on."

Hmm. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I do not accept Satan or God even just because the Bible says so. I believe it because it makes sense philosophically speaking.

"If you meant theology as study between religions then you still will never find proof. Every religion requires believe; and that is simply too far removed from science."

really? If that was true then science could not prove anything. There are some basic beliefs that we all have to believe. Now science is different that it is empirical and we can test it that way. However we can test religions using philosophy and logic.

"Why not make theology a cousin of philosophy?"

I would say it is more like a brother to philosophy but that it is a cousin to science.

blackhawk

 

[Hank]

Blackhawk01-science can never be proven either.-Blackhawk01End
Hank02-What type of science can not be proven?-Hank02End

Hank01-"The basic doctrines are established. Say Christianity. You accept Jesus. You accept Satan, as his arch enemy. You accept the Yin-Yang principle of good versus evil. You accept Revelation as a prophetic book. You accept the Holy Spirit. And so on."-Hank01End

Blackhawk01-Hmm. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I do not accept Satan or God even just because the Bible says so. I believe it because it makes sense philosophically speaking.-Blackhack01End

Hank02-That is the difference in science. You are not required to accept something, just because. The devil makes no sense what so ever. If God is omnipotent, there will be no fight in heaven between good vs evil. If God is not omnipotent, the Devil may win if he recruits enough angels turning into demons fighting against God.-Hank02End

Hank01-"If you meant theology as study between religions then you still will never find proof. Every religion requires believe; and that is simply too far removed from science."-Hank01End

blackhack01-really? If that was true then science could not prove anything. There are some basic beliefs that we all have to believe. Now science is different that it is empirical and we can test it that way. However we can test religions using philosophy and logic.-blackhack01End

Hank02-Religion is not logical, it's existence yes, not it's reasoning within, unless you believe your religion. Any religion tries to answer questions no one else can answer. Under this premise I have to accept religion as is, since answers to questions can not be found otherwise. Therefore religion can never be proven! Science does not answer questions it has no answers to. Therefore science is not related to religion. -Hank02End

 

[Blackhawk]

"What type of science can not be proven?"

all types. That is if you take the same type of skeptical view that you are taking with regards to philosophy and theology.

"That is the difference in science. You are not required to accept something, just because."

That is not true of the basic assumptions that make science possible. do you not trust that you can gain emprical evidence? Do you not presuppose that the earth is real?


"The devil makes no sense what so ever. If God is omnipotent, there will be no fight in heaven between good vs evil. If God is not omnipotent, the Devil may win if he recruits enough angels turning into demons fighting against God"

I will not go into the philosophical belief in the devil here but if ytou want to debate that then we can do it in the General apologetics forum. However my point is that things can accepted through philosophy because they make logical sense.

"Religion is not logical, it's existence yes, not it's reasoning within, unless you believe your religion. Any religion tries to answer questions no one else can answer. Under this premise I have to accept religion as is, since answers to questions can not be found otherwise. Therefore religion can never be proven! Science does not answer questions it has no answers to. Therefore science is not related to religion."

huh? Theology uses reason and logic all the time. If this is true then you have to reject philosophy also. Buit if you reject philosophy hen you have to reject science because science can only be if you accept certain philosophical premises. You also have to reject history and all other ways of gaining knowledge becaus they all have philosphical pressupositions behind them. So you can't reject philosophy without rejecting all knowledge.
Then all is just belief and then we are really right back where we started from anyways jsut using different terms.

blackhawk

 

[seebs]

I think you can do a much better job of *testing* science than you can theology.

If I have a hypothesis that birds evolved from reptiles, I can propose a test: Can we find a fossil of an animal which is somewhere between reptiles and birds?

If I have a hypothesis that God cares more about honesty and compassion than he does about whether or not you go to church regularly, I have no way to test it.

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by seebs
I think you can do a much better job of *testing* science than you can theology.

If I have a hypothesis that birds evolved from reptiles, I can propose a test: Can we find a fossil of an animal which is somewhere between reptiles and birds?

If I have a hypothesis that God cares more about honesty and compassion than he does about whether or not you go to church regularly, I have no way to test it.

I see your point but can't you test it using logic? And also what makes you think that you can accurately test that birds evolve from reptiles? Why do you think that you can understand those fossils that you have found?

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
"What type of science can not be proven?"

all types. That is if you take the same type of skeptical view that you are taking with regards to philosophy and theology.

Ah, I think I understand you now. I am my own stumbling block promoting science. LOL

To me science have two different groups.
Biology is an exact science. We know which virus does what damage. I accept that as prove that viruses exist even so I can't see it with my own 'naked' eye.

Quantum Mechanics is not exact. Everything is still a 'grey' theory. Even though accurate predictions can be made, it has too many grey areas of full understanding.

Considering your premise, that we don't know anything in absolute certainty, which I have to agree with, sure science can a cousin to religion.

 

[LouisBooth]

"I think you can do a much better job of *testing* science than you can theology.
"

I'd have to agree here. We can't use the same tools for both. At its route theology deals with something that can't nessisarily be verified with our 5 physical senses.

"Biology is an exact science. "

REally? I'd disagree citing some biochemical models. You can't know for sure, its just a best guess thing.

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"I think you can do a much better job of *testing* science than you can theology.
"

I'd have to agree here. We can't use the same tools for both. At its route theology deals with something that can't nessisarily be verified with our 5 physical senses.

Much of science can't be verified with our five physical senses either. I dare you to verify the mass of a proton using only your five senses and no instruments. Unfortunately, the supernatural seems to defy verification even in principle. If the Earth orbits Sol, how could one verify that it was God keeping the Earth in orbit, or Binky the 700-foot carrot, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Biology is an exact science. "

REally? I'd disagree citing some biochemical models. You can't know for sure, its just a best guess thing. [/B]

Why ask really? See my post again :Biology is an exact science. (The following is the explanation to the first statement, obviously lost somehow by someone) We know which virus does what damage. I accept that as prove that viruses exist even so I can't see it with my own 'naked' eye.

I did not say biochemical, I said biology. Like engineering biology has a vast spectrum of fields and subjects. Also grey fields in biology unlike theology are accepted and understood as such.

We can make prediction with a certain accuracy in biochemistry, name one field in theology that is possible to do so.

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by Satoshi

Unfortunately, the supernatural seems to defy verification even in principle. If the Earth orbits Sol, how could one verify that it was God keeping the Earth in orbit, or Binky the 700-foot carrot, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

That is why we have philosophy and theology. no we can't empirically verify God but we can look at Him through the use of reason. we can test for His existence by asking "Is it more reasonable to believe in God or not?" Whilenot an empirical test it actually is better. I mean how can I judge through my senses if I am seeing God or just a really neat being. Or maybe I am hallucinating.

blackhawk

 

[Blackhawk]

"Ah, I think I understand you now. I am my own stumbling block promoting science. LOL"

i have no idea what this means. Except if you mean that I believe you are a skeptic and then you can't say science is certain because no knowledge is certain.

"To me science have two different groups.
Biology is an exact science. We know which virus does what damage. I accept that as prove that viruses exist even so I can't see it with my own 'naked' eye."

Whether you see it with a microscope or with your own aked eye you can't be certain unless you accept certain philosophical prinicples as fact before you begin.

"Considering your premise, that we don't know anything in absolute certainty, which I have to agree with, sure science can a cousin to religion."

Okay. They are cousins then. Tehy are both ways of gaining certain types of knowledge that other forms can't arrive at. You can't use science to tell me if God exists. You can only use it to support your philosophical views. Likewise philosophy would not be the tool I would use to determine if evolution is true or not. But it does help science in certain ways so I can know if it is true or not.

Theyjust all work together to formulate what we think of as knowledge. We use philosophy, theology, history, science... in different ways in concert so we can make judgements on what we believe. None of these are better than the other because each serve its own function. Philosophy is probably the most widely used because it affects all others. That is what I mean that they are at least all cousins.

blackhawk

 

[LouisBooth]

" I dare you to verify the mass of a proton using only your five senses and no instruments. "

*chuckles* that's what instermentation does, it enhances our 5 physical sences. So why can't I use them?

"I said biology"

Okay...so where do you cut off biology when it comes to things like metabolism?

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
" I dare you to verify the mass of a proton using only your five senses and no instruments. "

*chuckles* that's what instermentation does, it enhances our 5 physical sences. So why can't I use them?

Could you break tradition and explain this? Please, tell me just what instrument is used to measure the mass of a proton and the corresponding sense that it "enhances."