Theology is science, Scripture is not

[Lawdog]

It is poor argumentation to rely on scripture heavily. Scripture can be used to prove anything.

Some have post huge quotes from scripture which it is usually ignored and uses up space.

Christians should try to study the science of theology so that they can demonstrate truths with only minimal scriptural quotes.

Thomas Aquinas pointed out that Theology is a science. The psuedo-scientists of the modern world are likely to reject this in order to maintain their false world view.

 

[(Q)]

If theology is the rational and systematic study of religion, why are there no atheist theologians?

Or are there... ?

 

[scorpius]

. Scripture can be used to prove anything.

amen bro..
which means its completely useless

Christians should try to study the science of theology so that they can demonstrate truths with only minimal scriptural quotes.

ROFL...
you may want to look up the meaning of the word SCIENCE...

Thomas Aquinas pointed out that Theology is a science. The psuedo-scientists of the modern world are likely to reject this in order to maintain their false world view.

Aquinas was a morron then,,and only Theology can be classified as pseudo-science.

 

[Nasor]

It is poor argumentation to rely on scripture heavily. Scripture can be used to prove anything.

Some have post huge quotes from scripture which it is usually ignored and uses up space.

Christians should try to study the science of theology so that they can demonstrate truths with only minimal scriptural quotes.

Thomas Aquinas pointed out that Theology is a science. The psuedo-scientists of the modern world are likely to reject this in order to maintain their false world view.

Science is the investigation of the natural world through empirical observation. When has any theologian ever performed a “religion experiment”? Something isn't necessarily a science just because it ends in "ology".

 

[Lawdog]

Hi there. Theology is not the study of religions. It is the study of divine being. Religion is a manner of binding oneself to What/Who is Eternal. Therefore, each religion may have several kinds of theology, each of which aims at understanding divine being, that is, the source of all that is.

Christian theology starts from the revelation of divine truths handed down in Tradition and Scripture, and uses philosophic language to understand it.

Christian theology differed from all other forms of Theology which preceded it, first, because it said that God was a personal divinity, not like 'The Force" which is antithetical to that reality, and because it claimed that humans have an inability to fully explain divine mysteries, like the Trinity, but nevertheless insisted on its reality.

Science is a body of knowledge gained not from empirical evidence alone, but from reasoning as well. Have you ever tried to understand the data of science without using reasoning power?

No science is independent from philosophy, not entirely, (and hence theology), because there must be a foundation to base the knowledge (em piric) and a system to validate that what is known is truly known and knowable. Science depends on data collected from the five senses, which have been proven to be sometimes mistaken.

Therefore Science is not any more certain on an empirical level than Religion.

Theology reasons to conclusions based on Revelation, which must be accepted by an act of Faith. In this case, Revelation takes the place of Empirical Data.

 

[Nasor]

Science is a body of knowledge gained not from empirical evidence alone, but from reasoning as well. Have you ever tried to understand the data of science without using reasoning power?

It’s true that science makes use of reason, but empirical observation is still necessary for something to be considered a “science”. That’s what differentiates science from things like mathematics and philosophy. In philosophy you simply sit around thinking about the world, trying to figure things out with reason. However, if you ever come to a conclusion that you can actually “check” by making an observation in the real world, then you have stopped doing philosophy and started doing science (assuming you bother to actually check).

No science is independent from philosophy, not entirely, (and hence theology), because there must be a foundation to base the knowledge (em piric) and a system to validate that what is known is truly known and knowable.

This is true - science has a philosophical base. But that doesn't mean that ALL philosophy is therefore a kind of science.

Theology reasons to conclusions based on Revelation, which must be accepted by an act of Faith. In this case, Revelation takes the place of Empirical Data.

And that is exactly why theology is not a science.

 

[Enigma'07]

It is poor argumentation to rely on scripture heavily. Scripture can be used to prove anything.

ONLY, when when one has not read the Bible through entirerly. In actuallity the stardards used to determine the historical accuracy of texts, like the Iliad, provide more support for the reliability of the Bible than any other historical book.

 

[Joeman]

Christianity is almost completely full of pagan DNA. "holy scripture" about Krishna and Horus are much more accurate then the bible.

 

[Lawdog]

"Theology is a science." Thomas Aquinas

Think how much hubris there is in disagreeing with this:

1) You are disagreeing with one of the greatest theologians since Christ. Who are you? What degrees do you have? Any in Theology?

2) One might say that Medicine is not scientific, since doctors rely very much on intuition and methods of healing on a molecular level they dont fully understand. Yet, if a doctor told you that you needed healing or you would die, would you not seriously consider his words?

How much weight would you put into a doctor's opinion if that doctor did not have a medical degree?

All the same, today, people in their madness say that they can design their own theology and scoff at the learned teachings of priests and ministers.

(words of healing to be accepted eventhough it may be bitter medicine)

 

[Sarkus]

"Theology is a science." Thomas Aquinas

"Theology is not a science." Me.
Which is more correct?

Can you decide purely from the words above?
No.
Just because Thomas Aquinas said what he said does not make it true.
Just because I said what I did does not make it true.

You decide for yourself whether Theology is a science or not.

 

[Lawdog]

You decide for yourself whether Theology is a science or not.

Deciding something for yourself is not always the appropriate action. In certain things, personal things, you must decide for yourself, praying for God's guidance.

However, in cases where there are things which are above your comprehension, it is better to consent to the wisdom of those whose knowledge is expert.

Auto mechanic is above my expertise, therefore I consent to the knowledge of mechanics who know what is wrong.

Many mechanics are out to get my money, therefore I have sometimes needed to risk in trusting an unknown mechanic. It would be better if I could just keep returning to the same mechanic.

The hierarchy of the Church is like the master mechanics school. To listen to a priest learned in human problems and theology would be like having a mechanic whose both a fixer and engineer.

Pray for God's guidance in this matter so that you may discern the truth.

 

[mustafhakofi]

Deciding something for yourself is not always the appropriate action. in cases where there are things which are above your comprehension, it is better to consent to the wisdom of those whose knowledge is expert.

rubbish! but you would or should still ask questions, you take nobodys word for it.
just because your not a mechanic, you should ask question just so you now next time, unless of course you a sheep, then you'd follow without question.
when I pick a movie to watch, I take no notice of what the critic says, that only his opinion, I like to decide for myself whether it's any good.

you cant discern truth from that which does on exist, and this is my opinion.

 

[Raithere]

Thomas Aquinas pointed out that Theology is a science.

The methodology of science is repeatable experimental evidence. One begins with a hypothesis. Then one designs a controlled experiment to test this hypothesis. If the experiment verifies the hypothesis one continues to devise other experiments.

If at any point the evidence refutes the hypothesis then one first examines the controls of the experiment to check for uncontrolled variables. If there are none then one must either change the hypothesis to allow for the new evidence or discard the hypothesis as untrue.

If over many repeated experiments, the hypothesis is consistently verified and never refuted by the results it may be considered a theory. The more supporting evidence, the stronger a theory it becomes.

If Theology is a science then, to date, is has failed to provide a single theory. All of its hypotheses have thus far been refuted.

~Raithere

 

[Lawdog]

If Theology is a science then, to date, is has failed to provide a single theory. All of its hypotheses have thus far been refuted.

~Raithere

Your Science as it stands in reality: First come up with a theory, like Evolution, then try to prove it by observable data, fail, and then devise elaborate supportive sub-pseudosciences, theories, and philosophies about strata and the age of the earth and the origin and purpose of Man. Use propaganda such as nature shows to repeat the now "Law" of this theory over and over on TV.

Theology is a science which has a reasoning methodology. It is a science that does not subject its findings on proof for validation of its "hypotheses", but rather on the authority of the Church.

 

[Raithere]

Your Science as it stands in reality: First come up with a theory, like Evolution, then try to prove it by observable data, fail, and then devise elaborate supportive sub-pseudosciences, theories, and philosophies about strata and the age of the earth and the origin and purpose of Man. Use propaganda such as nature shows to repeat the now "Law" of this theory over and over on TV.

*buzz*

I'm sorry. But you seemed to have confused Science with Christian fundamentalism.

Please don't try again. You haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about.

Theology is a science which has a reasoning methodology. It is a science that does not subject its findings on proof for validation of its "hypotheses", but rather on the authority of the Church.

In other words it is full of logical fallacies. I concur. Well, except for the "reasoned methodology" part.

BTW have you guys been able to figure out just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet? I know you've been working on that one for a while.

~Raithere

 

[Lawdog]

*buzz*

I'm sorry. But you seemed to have confused Science with Christian fundamentalism.

~Raithere

The Science of Theology uses reason drawn from logical irrefutables and non-contradictories to come to a deeper understanding of God and Reality.
It CHECKS its findings against the Truths already known to be factual from Church Tradition and Revelation.

Christian Fundamentalism, a kind of christianity that takes the scriptures literally on every point, does not use this method to come to its teachings.

They do not employ the Science of Theology, but only select findings which match its limited understanding, such as the Trinity. They have no authority by which to compare their private interpretations.

I now refer you to the great theologian himself, who explains his idea much better than I can. Please read carefully...


WHETHER SACRED DOCTRINE (THEOLOGIA) IS A SCIENCE?
Objection 1. It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles.
But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2 Thess. 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

Objection 2. Further, no science deals with individual facts.
But this sacred science treats of individual facts,
such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like.
Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1)
"to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten,
nourished, protected and strengthened."
But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine.
Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science.
We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences.
There are some which proceed from a principle known by
the natural light of intelligence, such as
arithmetic and geometry and the like.
There are some which proceed from principles known
by the light of a higher science: thus the science of
perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry,
and music from principles established by arithmetic.
So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it
proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science,
namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence,
just as the musician accepts on authority the principles
taught him by the mathematician,
so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.

Reply to Objection 1. The principles of any science are either in
themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions
of a higher science; and such, as we have said,
are the principles of sacred doctrine.

Reply to Objection 2. Individual facts are treated of in sacred
doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally,
but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed
in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish
the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation,
on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.

 

[Cottontop3000]

It sounds to me like the science of theology is still just trying to make the "Word of God" come out right. Which is it? You'd think God himself would have made sure that it came out right for every newborn on the planet. At least give everyone the right set of rules to go by to see that they at least had a fair chance of leading a worthy life. C'mon now, get real.

 

[Lawdog]

It sounds to me like the science of theology is still just trying to make the "Word of God" come out right. Which is it? You'd think God himself would have made sure that it came out right for every newborn on the planet. At least give everyone the right set of rules to go by to see that they at least had a fair chance of leading a worhty life. C'mon now, get real.

The Science of Theology does not try to perfect the meaning of Sacred Scripture, it is mearly a vehicle for understanding it.

The fact that God himself walked on earth and established the Church, insuring its integrity in matters of Faith, means that God wanted us to share the word to future generations. It is Man's resposibility, not God's, to make sure every new person will be able to have a chance at "getting it right".

 

[scorpius]

Your Science as it stands in reality: First come up with a theory, like Evolution, then try to prove it by observable data, fail, and then devise elaborate supportive sub-pseudosciences, theories, and philosophies about strata and the age of the earth and the origin and purpose of Man. Use propaganda such as nature shows to repeat the now "Law" of this theory over and over on TV.

HA HA you just described Creationistm..

while on subject of evolution ...its a FACT how it happens is a THEORY
read
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Theology is a science which has a reasoning methodology. It is a science that does not subject its findings on proof for validation of its "hypotheses", but rather on the authority of the Church.

bullshit..Theology is NOT a science,its a philosophy..
it INVENTS answers to how everything happened,and has no fng way to PROVE any of its claims,
as your buybull book full of contradictions and inconsistencies and total FICTION proves see
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology#Theology_and_the_philosophy_of_religion

 

[Cottontop3000]

Lawdog,

Before I answer that, let me ask you another question, just so I know where you specifically are coming from. Don't feel obligated to answer; I'm really not trying to set you up. On second thought, I'll go ahead and say what I want to say and then you can answer with a response if you like.

If it's Man's responsibility to make sure as many men and women hear the Word of God as possible, doesn't that make God a bit capricious. I know the Bible says God is a jealous God, but it's just not logical to say that God is the Light and a God of Mercy, if he doesn't care enough to make sure ALL of His children have a fair chance at being saved. "Man," if anything, screws most everything up, and if He exists, He knows that. He is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent and whatever other omni you want to throw in, not to mention the alpha and the omega. If he wants to put the burden on us, then I say fine. But He has to know that we will screw it up, and thus many of his children will go to Hell because of His negligience.

My question to you, though, is do you believe in Hell? If so, what form does it take?

CT3000