Who wrote the gospels?

[A Cup Of Tea]

I use all my words for free

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I use all my words for free

No ... you abuse them freely. It's not quite the same.

 

[Gordian Knot]

I used science in a wider definition, incorporating all methods for gathering and understanding knowledge.

Gotta side with Jay on this one, in concept if not in tone. There is no width wide enough to call religion and science as in any way comparable. Those who attempt to do so do a great disservice to both science and religion.

 

[Gordian Knot]

ACOT said "I call for definition of knowing and believing. I'm not speaking for Thomas now, but knowing in your heart that something is out there is more akin to what you would call believing. I would put down the glasses you use for the natural sciences when observing faith, because it generally know, even to Christians(!), that the divine can't be proven.

Thus I question what is flawed in his reasoning. A theologian dose not set out to prove God, in the way that a biologist desires to prove evolution. "

To my understanding Thomas is indeed out to prove God exists. And that God exists in a very limited belief structure; that of the Judea/Christian faith. He uses scripture to defend his reasoning that he is correct. He certainly uses scripture to mock Wil's beliefs.

The flaw in his reasoning, I believe, is that he has made a personal choice to believe that scripture is of divine origin. If scripture is divine, then the scripture he quotes proves his reasoning. But he can defend his reasoning only by making that initial, personal choice.

Everything that follows depends on his belief that scripture is of divine origin. But this is not a fact. It is an opinion.

Thomas, my apologies up front for seeming to put so many of my words as if they were yours. It was necessary to explain my point of view, but it should be clearly understood that what I have written here is my interpretation of Thomas' reasoning.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

No ... you abuse them freely. It's not quite the same.

Gotta side with Jay on this one, in concept if not in tone. There is no width wide enough to call religion and science as in any way comparable. Those who attempt to do so do a great disservice to both science and religion.

I really have no interest in this discussion, we are all clear what we all think, lets move on.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

ACOT said "I call for definition of knowing and believing. I'm not speaking for Thomas now, but knowing in your heart that something is out there is more akin to what you would call believing. I would put down the glasses you use for the natural sciences when observing faith, because it generally know, even to Christians(!), that the divine can't be proven.

Thus I question what is flawed in his reasoning. A theologian dose not set out to prove God, in the way that a biologist desires to prove evolution. "

To my understanding Thomas is indeed out to prove God exists. And that God exists in a very limited belief structure; that of the Judea/Christian faith. He uses scripture to defend his reasoning that he is correct. He certainly uses scripture to mock Wil's beliefs.

The flaw in his reasoning, I believe, is that he has made a personal choice to believe that scripture is of divine origin. If scripture is divine, then the scripture he quotes proves his reasoning. But he can defend his reasoning only by making that initial, personal choice.

Everything that follows depends on his belief that scripture is of divine origin. But this is not a fact. It is an opinion.

Thomas, my apologies up front for seeming to put so many of my words as if they were yours. It was necessary to explain my point of view, but it should be clearly understood that what I have written here is my interpretation of Thomas' reasoning.

I'll stop here, this has become to much about Thomas specifically.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, I guess I'll have to do some Catholic kicking and bashing...

OK. OK. You don't see it. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Where I come from, negative stereotyping is considered offensive.

I actually think your chants and idols are interesting, I find it very similar to what my Hindu friends do. But I also find it contrary to what the book says on the subject.

So let me get this straight.
You tell me you've been to 'hundreds' of Catholic services, and yet you never once thought to ask? Never once bothered to ascertain whether your assumption of idolatry is correct?

So I can assume your only 'interest' is in collecting evidence to tell yourself how much better you are than they?

... when I courteously attend the services at the bequest of a friend for this event or that (christenings, weddings, funerals, holidays, hapen to be in town whatever) in the past i was a little put off by what I see as hypocrisy...

Courteous? All those hundreds of times, you sat there in silence, looking down in quiet condemnation? And you call that a courtesy?

You mock your "Catholic brothers and sisters" for their "chants to the saint of lost things ... their St Michaels ... their mother mary in their front garden" as you call it ... And you never, ever, bothered to ask anyone to explain the reasoning behind it?

Rather than actually put yourself out, make an effort to find out the truth, you just assumed ...

And you call that being a friend?

Another cultural difference, I suppose. Where I come from, that's hypocrisy, not friendship.

You see, I've been to Hindu liturgies, Buddhist liturgies, I sought out Buddhists when I wanted to study meditation, and went on retreats with them ... and I make it clear that I'm Catholic, but I'm not there to sit in judgement nor find fault, and afterwards I say "can I ask you" about this aspect or that of what I've just witnessed. And often the answer has come as a real eye-opener.

But I'm like that because I would hate to pass judgement on my neighbour out of ignorance and error.

The same hypocrisy that other denominations that I attended turned me away from religous services...

You don't suppose, as you see it everywhere, that it's not yours? That you carry it around with you wherever you go?

As to arguing the mountains of evidence you provide, discussion of conjecture by the ancients and the fathers doesn't trump reality by archeologists, historians, scientists. Not in my book.

The point is Wil, the reality of 'archeologists, historians, scientists' trumps your dogma ... that's my point. Take Ehrman – at least he has the honesty to declare himself agnostic, and not invent his own religion and try and pass it off as authentic Christianity.

But did you miss the bit I wrote above about Luke being proved right by archaeologists and by historians? Did you miss the bit about the Pool of Siloe being assumed to be a Johannine invention, until the archaeologists actually found it?

Yes, you must have ... I get the impression I'm talking but the only thing you see is what you want to see, the only response that interets you is the one you can find fault with.

Here's a parable for you ... see if it rings a bell ...
Two men went up into a Church, one a Catholic, the other a friend, at his invitation. The friend looked on and rolled his eyes skyward and said to himself, Thank God I'm not like these, idolaters and hypocrites! I thank God that I am better than they. And the Catholic, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O God, be merciful to me a sinner. And he turned to the statues and icons of Mary and the disciples and the saints, and he said, prayer for me, brothers and sisters, to the Lord Our God ... I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted. (clue: Luke 18).

Hell, I'd love to hear your viewpoint, tis why I bring it up.

Not really. I've agreed with you on many things, but then I point our where the conclusions you jump to are not necessarily the only conclusion, and the reasons why ... but you ignore the reasons and stand by your assertions with the same vehemence as a Creationist — hence why I call you a fundamentalist.

But this is still me wasting my time.

No, I've done with you, Wil ... I've responded to your every objection with patience and thoroughness and reason, and got nothing for my efforts but more of the same.
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet, for a testimony against them" Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11, Luke 9:5.

 

[Thomas]

There is no width wide enough to call religion and science as in any way comparable. Those who attempt to do so do a great disservice to both science and religion.

Absolutely, science will always be the poor relation of religion, in that sense — by its own axioms it cannot ask nor answer the questions that lie at the heart of religion.

When it comes to theology, however, then of course, theology is a science, like physics or geometry, and as a science it proceeds according to its axioms.

Indeed, in many ways 'theology' remains close to Aristotle's First Philosophy that was the parent of the physical sciences, and no doubt its questions will remain long after the physical sciences have exhausted all there is to know about their subjects.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A
When it comes to theology, however, then of course, theology is a science, like physics or geometry, and as a science it proceeds according to its axioms.

Rubbish. So does Alice in Wonderland.

These silly attempts to dilute and distort 'science' suggest nothing so much as performance anxiety.

 

[Thomas]

To my understanding Thomas is indeed out to prove God exists.

Not really. I can argue the case that God is a viable proposition and not at all unreasonable or irrational. Nor is God at odds with science, for example.

And that God exists in a very limited belief structure; that of the Judea/Christian faith.

Again, not really. If I argue the existence of God, it's from a universal metaphysic, not from the Christian faith. I would use the same reason that a Hindu, for example, would use to argue the existence of God.

My own faith and theology I've long since stopped discussing here. All the discussion at IO is very generalised, shallow stuff when it comes to theology, and non-existent when it comes to metaphysics (with one exception. Mr R.).

That's why there's a noticeable lack of contributors here who speak from a religious tradition.

He uses scripture to defend his reasoning that he is correct. He certainly uses scripture to mock Wil's beliefs.

I'm not mocking, I'm challenging. I think you'll find it's Wil who tends to mock the simple expression of faith.

I argue from Scripture to show that Wil's interpretation of an isolated text is erroneous and markedly self-serving when you read that text in the context of the text as a whole, and in the historical, archaeological and scientific context — sitz im leben. The idea that the authors of Scripture wrote for the mindset of late twentieth century Americans seems absurd to me. (Nothing against Americans, as such.)

Especially when Wil asserts the literal interpretation of the text, even when it's obvious that the text is explicitly intended to be read as an analogy.

Wil uses a limited selection of criticism to advance a thesis that those critics he cites would never endorse, and then asserts a thesis that even the authors of Scripture would believe to be outlandish!

Wil accuses religions of all manner of faults, and the traditions for deceiving their congregations ... and then preaches a creed that has less to validate it than the beliefs he declares to be invalid!

He commits the sin he rages about: the deception of others

The flaw in his reasoning, I believe, is that he has made a personal choice to believe that scripture is of divine origin. If scripture is divine, then the scripture he quotes proves his reasoning. But he can defend his reasoning only by making that initial, personal choice.

Quite right ... but that is not 'unreasonable'. The Catholic faith is not unreasonable. It's silly to say that it is. Unless one can prove beyond doubt, that Scripture is not divinely inspired.

Everything that follows depends on his belief that scripture is of divine origin. But this is not a fact. It is an opinion.

I would say a matter of choice. I choose to believe, in the face of the date and the evidence.

But how does one square Wil's assertion that Scripture is not of divine origin, that its origin is unknown and cannot be trusted, because its sources are unknown, the product of men, with all their flaws and failings and hang-ups, their tendencies to elaborate, fantasise and mythologise, with their agendas, egos and ambitions ... and yet asserts an infallible faith in his own inherent divinity, because Scripture says so?

 

[Thomas]

Rubbish. So does Alice in Wonderland.
These silly attempts to dilute and distort 'science' suggest nothing so much as performance anxiety.

Plato and Aristotle? Plotinus and Porphyry? Augustine and Aquinas? Lonergan and Ricoeur and Whitehead and Wittgenstein? Freud and Jung ... all of their thinking on the issue just 'silly attempts to dilute and distort science'?

I think not ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Plato and Aristotle? Plotinus and Porphyry? Augustine and Aquinas? Lonergan and Ricoeur and Whitehead and Wittgenstein? Freud and Jung ... all of their thinking on the issue just 'silly attempts to dilute and distort science'?

I think not ...

It is just possible that you don't know that you've changed the goalposts, i.e., that your posturing stems from ignorance rather than dishonesty, but, for the record, we were talking about the proper definition of 'science'. If and when you choose to get back on topic we can chat ...

 

[wil]

Thomas...I've asked...repeatedly...and get the same avoidance of the question that you display here.

I don't stereotype...I am openly discussing my experiences. And frankly I think it a sin to tell a child he is going to hell if he doesn't make it to mass...I've seen the look in their eyes as we are arriving late...I remember what it was like to displease or not live upto my father's expectations as a little tike, I can't imagine what exponentially turning that to 'Father' must be like.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Words are marvelous things. And they can also be one pain in the ass. I'm feeling the effect of both those statements right now. So I'm going to change course here and start over.

It is not my place to say that any religion is more reasonable, or unreasonable than any other. As I have said before, my belief is that religions, and the gods that represent them, were created by mortals to attempt to put an understanding to the unknowable.

More to follow......

 

[Gordian Knot]

Whether there is some greater entity beyond what we mortals understand is an unknown. The fact that I believe all religions to be mortal made does not negate the possibility of said entity. This is why I am agnostic.

It is impossible, however, for me to accept that theology is in any way a science. Theology is a study certainly but it is not a science.

Jumping over to Mr. Dictionary again:

Full Definition of THEOLOGY
1: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

2a : a theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of atonement>
b : a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic theology>

3: a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary.

I believe it is critical that we keep these two concepts strictly apart. Because when we do not, we risk falling into the quicksand of pseudo-science, such as Intelligent Design.

 

[wil]

The closest version I come to of G!d as principle is still the TOE... the all pervasive that controls everything...

 

[Thomas]

Hi GK —

It is impossible, however, for me to accept that theology is in any way a science. Theology is a study certainly but it is not a science.

I think you're working on too narrow a concept – all study is science.

The word 'theo' means God, the word 'ology' means a subject of study, or branch of learning.

Looking at Aquinas:

Article 2. Whether sacred doctrine 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 Thessalonians 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.

You can dismiss this if you like, but you'd be obliged to argue the case with every faculty of science and philosophy to do so.

One doesn't have to accept faith or its findings, but to say theology is not a science seems to me a sign of how much man has brought down a curtain across the horizon of his intellectual speculation.

I think the more dangerous quicksand is 'scientism', which assumes empiricism is the answer to everything.

 

[Thomas]

Definitions of theology:

The Free Dictionary:
The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

Oxford Dictionaries:
The study of the nature of God and religious belief:

Merriam Webster
The study of religious faith, practice, and experience : the study of God and God's relation to the world...

So theology is a study.

What concerns is the idea that the study of God is somehow invalid when compared to a physical science, or that it's not an authentic field of study?

My favourite definition is Anselm's: 'Faith seeking understanding'

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Definitions of theology: ...
So theology is a study.

as-trol-o-gy

: the study of how the positions of the stars and movements of the planets have a supposed influence on events and on the lives and behavior of people​

source

So astrology is a study.

phre-nol-o-gy

: the study of the conformation of the skull based on the belief that it is indicative of mental faculties and character​

source

So phrenology is a study.

"The map is not the territory."

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

How unfortunate that I used the word science rather causal-like to describe a field of study. Anything else I wrote and anything else that was discussed has become irrelevant in the blink of an eye. The way people express themselves now implies we won't be getting anywhere any time soon. I find this discussion irrelevant to the topic and I will, once again, step back. I don't think I have anything to contribute. Best of luck.