4 ms·
I don't think that studing chemistry (I like to think about alchemy as a precursor of chemistry) or theology should be stigmatized. I understand that it was jus
by kukx 10y ago
I don't think that studing chemistry (I like to think about alchemy as a precursor of chemistry) or theology should be stigmatized. I understand that it was just an example to support the core idea of the article, but it still leaves a bad taste.
- bloaf 10y agoDo you know of any unambiguous breakthroughs in understanding that have come out of academic theology in the past, say, 200 years? By "unambiguous" I mean "accepted by the majority of other academic theologians." I have nothing against theology as a hobby or religious pursuit, but at some point we have to say "the well is dry" and admit that there is no grounds for spending public funds on it. Specifically: the only payback we can expect lies in the student's personal religious experience.
- landon32 10y agoI don't think they should be stigmatized, but I also don't think that was really what pg meant to do. How much was Newton able to contribute to theology and chemistry, compared to how much he contributed to physics? Sure, maybe he just worked less hard on theology+chemistry, or he wasn't good at those topics, but what seems more likely is that there were no useful discoveries to be made there at the time given the tools + world context Newton had.
- callmeed 10y agoI got that too. The essay definitely had an anti-religious undertone to me.
- jp_sc 10y agoYou cannot study what -by definition- it's impossible to observe or measure directly or indirectly. Believing in God it's an act of faith, you cannot KNOW nothing. So yes, in modern times, theology and alchemy has the same scientific value: none
- scrollbar 10y agoScientific value != value. I view theology as a study of how humans characterize their relationship to that which is beyond logic: god, infinity, existence, whatever. To me, this study has individual and collective value even in modern times, despite the fact that it has no scientific value.
- jorangreef 10y ago"You cannot study what -by definition- it's impossible to observe or measure directly or indirectly" You're limiting knowledge to the hard sciences. That kind of thinking is not scientific, but merely Scientism. You're also ruling out many scientific domains, e.g. history which operates according to the historical method. Theology (in the original Christian sense of the word) stands on the historical method. It's interested primarily in those historical events from which we can learn about God. If Jesus is not historical, if God has not acted in history, then there's nothing to know about God, and there's no such thing as Theology.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoHistory is studied through indirect measurements - written accounts, archaeology, oral history. All reasonable scientific routes. As allowed by the OP?
- jorangreef 10y agoYes, that would be the historical method. But that is different to the "observe", "measure", rinse-and-repeat methodology which is commonly understood as the scientific method. The methods by which one studies physics and history are different, but history is no less scientific, and it falls within the sciences, as does theology since it depends on the historical method. Theology cannot argue or learn anything about God for which there is no historical basis.