4 ms·

pg's "theology" is a strawman. Theology is nothing but a study of the implications of the historical events concerning Jesus of Nazareth, those events themselv

pg's "theology" is a strawman. Theology is nothing but a study of the implications of the historical events concerning Jesus of Nazareth, those events themselves being subject to the historical method. Either I am missing something, or pg is essentially implying some or all of the following: 1. The person of Jesus Christ did not exist in history. 2. There is insufficient information concerning him. 3. Studying the historical person of Jesus Christ according to the historical method is akin to, or of similar value to, the study of alchemy, i.e. a waste of time. I seriously doubt whether any historian interested in ancient history would make such claims. It's pretty ignorant and reckless coming from pg.

thegenius2000 10y ago
Yes, to dismiss theology along with alchemy -- in the same sentence -- as altogether useless is childish oversimplification. Rejecting Biblical faiths is one thing, but to ignore the impact the Christian worldview has had on Western science, including the life of Isaac Newton (who would never have invested time in studying the physical world if he didn't believe it had a Creator, and therefore order), either shows a gross lack of historical knowledge or poor taste. It's a pity because I agree with him otherwise about the risk taking, which was the main point of his article.
- olavk 10y ago
  If want to use words like childish, ignorant, poor taste, you really need to make your case better. Many scientists does not believe in a creator but still believe the physical world to have order. In any case, whether a creator exist or not, it is still a waste of time to search in the Bible for information about his plans for the future, like Newton did. If you are going to argue it wasn't a waste of time, you have to point out what useful information Newton discovered in his studies of the Bible.
olavk 10y ago
Theology is not the study of the historical Jesus. The study of the historical Jesus using the same methods as other historical research is just historical research. Theology on the other hand is the study of God and the Bible from a religious rather then historical angle. So it is a completely different subject.
- jorangreef 10y ago
  No, Theology is "a study of the __implications__ of the historical events" concerning Jesus Christ, which is another way of saying it studies the meaning of the historical events concerning Jesus. If there are no historical events concerning Jesus, then Theology is a waste of time. You cannot study or know anything about God, which he has not himself already revealed in history. That's a fundamental tenet of Theology. Therefore, before Theology, one must first establish the historicity and details of those events according to the historical method and textual criticism (without any bias or presuppositions from naturalist philosophy). Theology then takes it from there. And really Theology is nothing more than a study of what is already there in the Bible, for the Bible is a record not just of the events themselves, but also the meaning of those events. It provides the facts and the rubric for interpreting those facts. "Theologians" never invent or bring anything to the table, which God has not already made clear.
  - olavk 10y ago
    > "Theologians" never invent or bring anything to the table, which God has not already made clear. That is a religious viewpoint, a leap of faith. From a rational perspective, there is no reason to think God put anything special in the Bible. The Bible is a collection of texts about things people have believed, but there is no reason to think God had a hand in it anymore than in say the Quran or the Edda.
    - jorangreef 10y ago
      >> "Theologians" never invent or bring anything to the table, which God has not already made clear. > "That is a religious viewpoint, a leap of faith" No, it reflects an understanding of the scientific method, which makes no claim to have any tools or ability to study the supernatural. Or do you disagree as to the limits and scope of science? Science is limited to the study of the natural world, which includes the study of history (according to the historical method). "From a rational perspective, there is no reason to think God put anything special in the Bible." By logic, that is false. If, the supernatural (should it exist) wished to break into the natural world by working events and leaving information which humans could study and understand and be sure of in terms of history, then so be it, but you have no rational ability to challenge that right. Or have you already disallowed the possibility of the supernatural or precluded any ability on its part? As Paul said to Agrippa in his defence, "why would any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?" You do however, have the scientific ability to study history, to see if such events have not in fact taken place. History is the study of events, regardless of the "probability" of such events. Only a frequentist would hold that an event cannot happen because they themselves deem it unlikely. To the historian, events either happened or they did not. Finally, as a corollary, it follows that there is also no scientific ability to disprove anything supernatural (as much as some naturalists would love to do), merely to prove it, and then only on the basis of its interaction with the natural world which can be studied by science. Carl Sagan would tell you the same thing. The problem for some is that they are hampered by naturalist philosophy (as opposed to science) or frequentism, or their lifestyle or worldview, or what others think of them. As Jesus himself said to the religious Pharisees who opposed him: "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?"

thegenius2000 10y ago

Yes, to dismiss theology along with alchemy -- in the same sentence -- as altogether useless is childish oversimplification. Rejecting Biblical faiths is one thing, but to ignore the impact the Christian worldview has had on Western science, including the life of Isaac Newton (who would never have invested time in studying the physical world if he didn't believe it had a Creator, and therefore order), either shows a gross lack of historical knowledge or poor taste. It's a pity because I agree with him otherwise about the risk taking, which was the main point of his article.

olavk 10y ago
If want to use words like childish, ignorant, poor taste, you really need to make your case better. Many scientists does not believe in a creator but still believe the physical world to have order. In any case, whether a creator exist or not, it is still a waste of time to search in the Bible for information about his plans for the future, like Newton did. If you are going to argue it wasn't a waste of time, you have to point out what useful information Newton discovered in his studies of the Bible.

olavk 10y ago

Theology is not the study of the historical Jesus. The study of the historical Jesus using the same methods as other historical research is just historical research. Theology on the other hand is the study of God and the Bible from a religious rather then historical angle. So it is a completely different subject.

jorangreef 10y ago
No, Theology is "a study of the __implications__ of the historical events" concerning Jesus Christ, which is another way of saying it studies the meaning of the historical events concerning Jesus. If there are no historical events concerning Jesus, then Theology is a waste of time. You cannot study or know anything about God, which he has not himself already revealed in history. That's a fundamental tenet of Theology. Therefore, before Theology, one must first establish the historicity and details of those events according to the historical method and textual criticism (without any bias or presuppositions from naturalist philosophy). Theology then takes it from there. And really Theology is nothing more than a study of what is already there in the Bible, for the Bible is a record not just of the events themselves, but also the meaning of those events. It provides the facts and the rubric for interpreting those facts. "Theologians" never invent or bring anything to the table, which God has not already made clear.
- olavk 10y ago
  > "Theologians" never invent or bring anything to the table, which God has not already made clear. That is a religious viewpoint, a leap of faith. From a rational perspective, there is no reason to think God put anything special in the Bible. The Bible is a collection of texts about things people have believed, but there is no reason to think God had a hand in it anymore than in say the Quran or the Edda.
  - jorangreef 10y ago
    >> "Theologians" never invent or bring anything to the table, which God has not already made clear. > "That is a religious viewpoint, a leap of faith" No, it reflects an understanding of the scientific method, which makes no claim to have any tools or ability to study the supernatural. Or do you disagree as to the limits and scope of science? Science is limited to the study of the natural world, which includes the study of history (according to the historical method). "From a rational perspective, there is no reason to think God put anything special in the Bible." By logic, that is false. If, the supernatural (should it exist) wished to break into the natural world by working events and leaving information which humans could study and understand and be sure of in terms of history, then so be it, but you have no rational ability to challenge that right. Or have you already disallowed the possibility of the supernatural or precluded any ability on its part? As Paul said to Agrippa in his defence, "why would any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?" You do however, have the scientific ability to study history, to see if such events have not in fact taken place. History is the study of events, regardless of the "probability" of such events. Only a frequentist would hold that an event cannot happen because they themselves deem it unlikely. To the historian, events either happened or they did not. Finally, as a corollary, it follows that there is also no scientific ability to disprove anything supernatural (as much as some naturalists would love to do), merely to prove it, and then only on the basis of its interaction with the natural world which can be studied by science. Carl Sagan would tell you the same thing. The problem for some is that they are hampered by naturalist philosophy (as opposed to science) or frequentism, or their lifestyle or worldview, or what others think of them. As Jesus himself said to the religious Pharisees who opposed him: "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?"