What is a religion.

[variant]

That is not "fairly obviously true". It was a matter of contention for some time.

How do you justify it? Is it similar to the way you would justify a theological claim?

In being the presuppositions upon which their respective disciplines are built, they differ not at all. However they ARE both distinct from the methodologies which are used to build upon those foundations.

We can agree that theology rests upon suppositions, the point is the epistemology is nearly completely different between the disciplines you wished to compare (so much so as to be laughable).

And If you are halfway as good at logical inference and argument structure as you should be if you are a mathematician you should already understand this.

You know, rather than using weasel wording to try to make your religious beliefs sound like they are comparable to mathematics or science.

 

[lesliedellow]

How do you justify it? Is it similar to the way you would justify a theological claim?

It was included because it couldn't be derived from the existing axioms, but was thought too important to be left out in the rain.

 

[variant]

It was included because it couldn't be derived from the existing axioms, but was thought too important to be left out in the rain.

Again, is this a similar process to theology at all?

 

[lesliedellow]

Again, is this a similar process to theology at all?

Were there long disputes over what should be included in the Nicene Creed? Yes there were.

 

[variant]

Were there long disputes over what should be included in the Nicene Creed? Yes there were.

Yes well I know a bit about how the Nicene Creed got resolved... I can't imagine a discipline like mathematics would be similar.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes well I know a bit about how the Nicene Creed got resolved... I can't imagine a discipline like mathematics would be similar.

Debate?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[variant]

Debate?

-CryptoLutheran

Perhaps if your intention is to blur the differences between theology and mathematics out to be as broad as possible so you don't have to grasp the vast chasm between the two vastly differn't ideas and can freely compare them as if that made any sense.

Do you suppose that we simply convene counsels, debate, and take votes on mathematical axioms now?

Do you suppose that theological questions are as well resolved as those where mathematical problems are solved? How exactly do we know that the Arians for instance were so profoundly incorrect about the nature of God? Because they lost the debate among the clergy?

The idea of the counsel of Nicaea is a good example though, as it does show what a religion is, and what religious orthodoxy is pretty succinctly.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Perhaps if your intention is to blur the differences between theology and mathematics out to be as broad as possible so you don't have to grasp the vast chasm between the two vastly differn't ideas and can freely compare them as if that made any sense.

Do you suppose that we simply convene counsels, debate, and take votes on mathematical axioms now?

Do you suppose that theological questions are as well resolved as those where mathematical problems are solved? How exactly do we know that the Arians for instance were so profoundly incorrect about the nature of God? Because they lost the debate among the clergy?

The idea of the counsel of Nicaea is a good example though, as it does show what a religion is, and what religious orthodoxy is pretty succinctly.

My comment had to do with how things were resolved at the council which met at Nicea, through debate. Given the amount of conspiracy theory and ahistorical ideas floating around concerning the Council of Nicea, I thought I'd point out that the matter was dealt with by an exchange of ideas and words--debate. I suspect mathematics are not done the way conciliar theological debate is done.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[variant]

My comment had to do with how things were resolved at the council which met at Nicea, through debate. Given the amount of conspiracy theory and ahistorical ideas floating around concerning the Council of Nicea, I thought I'd point out that the matter was dealt with by an exchange of ideas and words--debate.

No, I was just going on the history taken at face value.

I suspect mathematics are not done the way conciliar theological debate is done.

-CryptoLutheran

That was what I was getting at.

Sorry if I was getting more snarky than necessary. I think I was getting a bit irritated with the flow of the argument up until that point.

 

[lesliedellow]

Do you suppose that we simply convene counsels, debate, and take votes on mathematical axioms now?

There might not be councils, but there are conferences, and there is also debate. When Cantor introduced his theory of infinite sets, it didn't immediately meet with universal acclaim.

Do you suppose that theological questions are as well resolved as those where mathematical problems are solved? How exactly do we know that the Arians for instance were so profoundly incorrect about the nature of God? Because they lost the debate among the clergy?

They were incorrect because it is not too difficult to demonstrate that the New Testament implies the Trinity, and that is why the idea was in circulation as early as the second century. Don't bother telling us that you don't believe the Bible; we already know that, but theology is generally not carried on for the benefit of atheists.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

As a mathematician, maybe I am used to presupposing the axioms of ZFC set theory, without confusing them with the methodologies used to build the rest of mathematics thereon.

You have a PhD in mathematics? I take issue because you've stated a known mathematical falsehood. The continuum hypothesis is known to be undecidable in ZFC. You cited an article which says that the continuum hypothesis implies the axiom of choice. And then you said that the reverse implication is also true, which contradicts the proof of the undecidable nature of the continuum hypothesis. You also ignored me when I pointed this out. I assumed that you were simply dabbling in mathematics and were referencing things you didn't understand on top of making uninformed conjectures. Could you clarify?

 

[lesliedellow]

You have a PhD in mathematics? I take issue because you've stated a known mathematical falsehood. The continuum hypothesis is known to be undecidable in ZFC.

The Continuum Hypothesis is undecidable in ZF. It is not undecidable in ZFC. I suggest you look elsewhere than the web for your information.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The Continuum Hypothesis is undecidable in ZF. It is not undecidable in ZFC. I suggest you look elsewhere than the web for your information.

Thank you for the clarification. While dead wrong, your statements are now at least self-consistent.

 

[variant]

There might not be councils, but there are conferences, and there is also debate. When Cantor introduced his theory of infinite sets, it didn't immediately meet with universal acclaim.

Regardless mathematical problems are resolved with math and theory. Cold hard logical math, and demonstration, not a debate society. No one gets to claim authority on math, mathematical treatises are not sacred, and you can't simply be outvoted because your viewpoints are simply unpopular. We don't revoke peoples PHD's or teaching degrees because they were outvoted at some mathematical conference/debate where they decided what mathematical orthodoxy was and had a creed published and branded unbelievers heretics.

At some point with comparing ideas you think about what the differences are in the things you are comparing and compare that to the similarities. Or, maybe you only do so if you are honest with yourself and don't think your biases are sacrosanct.

They were incorrect because it is not too difficult to demonstrate that the New Testament implies the Trinity, and that is why the idea was in circulation as early as the second century. Don't bother telling us that you don't believe the Bible; we already know that, but theology is generally not carried on for the benefit of atheists.

Arius supported his claims with the Bible as well.

That I don't believe in the Bible is irrelevant, the methodology for deciding what it means (in orthodoxy), what is in it and who gets to say, is whatever the powers that be say it is. They can claim inspiration by God himself all they like, it was a debate society.

To the extent that they can succeed, given, again, the unimaginably high differences in christian theology given even the same book.

Calling it comparable to math, a discipline that demonstrates it's theory with proofs and strict logic to convince others is, again, simply a bad comparison.

 

[lesliedellow]

No one gets to claim authority on math, mathematical treatises are not sacred, and you can't simply be outvoted because your viewpoints are simply unpopular. We don't revoke peoples PHD's or teaching degrees because they were outvoted at some mathematical conference/debate where they decided what mathematical orthodoxy was and had a creed published and branded unbelievers heretics.

Nobody has their PhDs revoked for daring to disagree with the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not least because neither of those two gentlemen have the power or authority to do it.

That I don't believe in the Bible is irrelevant, the methodology for deciding what it means (in orthodoxy), what is in it and who gets to say, is whatever the powers that be say it is.

No it isn't. Anybody can read the flaming thing, and apply the rules of ordinary Aristotlean logic.

 

[variant]

Nobody has their PhDs revoked for daring to disagree with the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not least because neither of those two gentlemen have the power or authority to do it.

Well in the example you gave the counsel of Nicaea, they excommunicated some of the losers of the debate for not adhering to the counsels decision.

The pope famously threatened Galileo with death for daring to question the church on science for an example, so yes, if they still felt they held jurisdiction over metaphysical/scientific matters it would be a bit like that (This is of course how religion treats people within religion who dare disagree with the orthodoxy).

It becomes hard, of course to establish an authority on what GOD says, even after you've patched together all the works you've deemed holy.

No it isn't. Anybody can read the flaming thing, and apply the rules of ordinary Aristotlean logic.

Right, this was a mathematical style discourse in Aristotelian logic because no one could ever come to a differn't conclusion on what the Bible says.

Which is of course why there have been so many divisions in Christianity, several schisms, multiple "heresys" and over 30,000 sects and multiple large religion based wars within christian civilization, because people are so bad at logic.

 

[lesliedellow]

The pope famously threatened Galileo with death for daring to question the church on science for an example, so yes, if they still felt they held jurisdiction over metaphysical/scientific matters it would be a bit like that (This is of course how religion treats people within religion who dare disagree with the orthodoxy).

The Pope was a personal friend of Galileo, and he had the former's permission to write his book. But Galileo was not born for a career in the Diplomatic Corp, and he made it clear in his book that he thought geocentrists were fools. Since the Pope was a geocentrist, that put an end to a beautiful friendship, and Galileo no longer had the Pope's protection against those who wanted to silence him.

Right, this was a mathematical style discourse in Aristotelian logic because no one could ever come to a differn't conclusion on what the Bible says.

Historians can come to different conclusions based upon the same evidence, and so can anthropologists. I doubt if they would be highly charmed to be told that they therefore cannot be using the ordinary methods of logical deduction.

Which is of course why there have been so many divisions in Christianity, several schisms, multiple "heresys" and over 30,000 sects and multiple large religion based wars within christian civilization, because people are so bad at logic.

Oh that famous 30,000 denominations. I wonder whether even one atheist who quotes it knows where it comes from. It comes ffrom the World Christian Encyclopedia, and, according to it, Catholics in England belong to a different denomination to Catholics in Scotland, and they both belong to a different denomination to Catholics in France, and so on. Likewise for Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and so on.

With that method of accounting it is not difficult to come up with 30,000 denominations, but I am sure it would come as news to Lutherans in America that they don't belong to the same denomination as Lutherans in Germany.

 

[variant]

The Pope was a personal friend of Galileo, and he had the former's permission to write his book. But Galileo was not born for a career in the Diplomatic Corp, and he made it clear in his book that he thought geocentrists were fools. Since the Pope was a geocentrist, that put an end to a beautiful friendship, and Galileo no longer had the Pope's protection against those who wanted to silence him.

You seem to be missing the point that religious people felt OK with the idea of threatening to put people to death for disagreeing with their orthodoxy.

Galileo was convicted and silenced, and he was lucky they didn't kill him.

Historians can come to different conclusions based upon the same evidence, and so can anthropologists. I doubt if they would be highly charmed to be told that they therefore cannot be using the ordinary methods of logical deduction.

Their fields are simply more open to interpretation and thus disagreement, but they still rightfully claim to have methodological analysis in a way that religion will never get to seriously or realistically claim. And no, I am not saying that theologians don't use logic, I am saying that they don't really resolve their differences with it.

The counsel of Nicaea for instance seems to my view to have as much to do with politics as logic.

Oh that famous 30,000 denominations. I wonder whether even one atheist who quotes it knows where it comes from. It comes from the World Christian Encyclopedia, and, according to it, Catholics in England belong to a different denomination to Catholics in Scotland, and they both belong to a different denomination to Catholics in France, and so on. Likewise for Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and so on.


With that method of accounting it is not difficult to come up with 30,000 denominations, but I am sure it would come as news to Lutherans in America that they don't belong to the same denomination as Lutherans in Germany.

OK, so how many christian denominations are there?

Seems pretty tight to me that there is a bit of division:
List of Christian denominations by number of members - Wikipedia

 

[lesliedellow]

Their fields are simply more open to interpretation and thus disagreement, but they still rightfully claim to have methodological analysis in a way that religion will never get to seriously or realistically claim.

So how come world famous universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge, not to mention Harvard, have departments of theology? Do you think they would tolerate something which wasn't intellectually rigorous?

The counsel of Nicaea for instance seems to my view to have as much to do with politics as logic.

Constantine just wanted the bishops to stop arguing. He probably couldn't have cared less what decisions they came to.

 

[variant]

So how come world famous universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge, not to mention Harvard, have departments of theology? Do you think they would tolerate something which wasn't intellectually rigorous?

You can study just about anything in an intellectually rigorous way. Theology's problem is access to the problem it tries to address. The base material of religion in general makes for plenty of interesting questions and debates, so, much like philosophy, there is plenty of value in the churn of human thinking, regardless of it's ability or inability to actually to move or progress as a discipline.

Lacking common methodology for access to the nature of the divine makes it a game of blindfolded chess where you don't know the rules. Thus, very little is ever really resolved, and what you really end up studying is the religious convention and the holy scripture echo chamber itself.

Further, the theology department at Harvard isn't exactly where I think theological questions are really sussed out.

Constantine just wanted the bishops to stop arguing. He probably couldn't have cared less what decisions they came to.

Hard to get into the mans mind from this far in the future but that's a fair enough take.