Arrowman

In another thread, ilgwamh quoted the following:

Christian Theology can be called a science today in that it involves classified or sytematized knowledge. "But Christian Theology is not a "science" in the sense of dealing primarily with realities that are "subject to weight and measurement"--a definition most germane to the physical and natural sciences."
(Garrett, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical and Evangelical, page 6)
Differences between the tasks and methods of the Christian faith and physical sciences:

Garrett records (Ibid, page 7) differences noted by Edgar Mullins: ***
1 They deal with different realities. A spiritual vs material reality.
2 Their modes of knowledge differ (sensory experience versus fellowship with God derived from
and consistent with a historical revelation of God).
3. They deal with different types of causality (tansformation of energy versus interaction of
persons.
4. They reach different formmulations of their results (laws of mathematical formulas vs unique
historical events together with general principals or teachings).

Mullins said they agree in the following aspects:

1. Only facts are taken into account.
2. The realities dealt with are only partially known. Compare further observation and
experimentation with 1 Cor 13:12 and 1 John 3:2
3. Both seek systematic formulations of what is known.

*** Mullins, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression, pg 83.

This struck a chord with me because of a letter I read in the latest Australian Skeptic journal. In this letter (sorry, don't have it with me, can't attribute properly) the author argued that theology is no more a legitimate branch of philosophy than astrology is a legitimate branch of astronomy. He argued that philosophy relies on logic and strength of argument, and that theology simply allows you to make things up as you go along.

Now I had never bothered to think about that much before, and I suppose prior to reading that letter I would have allowed that theology was a legitimate branch of philosophy. But the author of that letter is right. Scales fell from my eyes.

In my opinion theology is no more science or philosophy, than is an analysis or critique of Lord of the Rings. If anything, theology is a mixture of literary analysis (the Bible), and history. It does not deal with facts (as laughably asserted in the quote above) and it does not allow itself to be bound by the laws of logic or critical thinking (essential to philosophy).

[Christian] Theology does not deal with "facts" or "realities" or "knowledge" - it deals only with "belief" and the analysis of a particular religiois text.

Anyone care to discuss?

Vinnie

My own personal views gleaned through a systematic theology of sorts are nothing like what you described. Though I willingly admit religious "facts" and scientific "facts" are different. Personally, I don't make my views up as I go along. Not all theology is scientifically forumlated. I'll give you that. But some try to only take "facts" into account even though what are "facts" to them might be wrong. When done properly it should be a systematic formulation of known "facts." I expect atheists to disagree with the "facts" of theologians so in that respect it may be all bunk to them. My point is that some of who study theology try to employ consistent methods in formulating doctrine.

Its late and I'm not sure if any of the made sense <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

It made sense. Theologians attempt to use logic and reason in dealing with the assertions of their particular theology and relating them to each other. In that sense theology might be taken to be a branch of philosophy. That's as far as I am willing to go without reference to the content of theology, where I agree with Heinlein.

Vorkosigan

Grejak

I minor currently in theology, and have taken multiple courses on xianity. From my studies, xian philosophers base their conclusions/philosophies off the bible and will ignore evidence that contradicts the bible.

For example, Hauerwas (or maybe Yoder, I confuse the two) based his version of xian ethics off of the resurrection of Jesus. In his book, he states that if Jesus were not resurrected from the dead, then xian ethics would not have a foundation. His conclusion? Jesus must have been resurrected (his book went into a lot more detail, but still hinged on the validity of the resurrection).

Plenty of the other authors made conclusions that I thought ignored parts of the bible or ignored a biblical contradiction, although they did follow logically from the parts of the bible examined.

Egoinos

It depends. Theology was once known as The Queen of the Sciences, but I suspect that was when "science" had a slightly different meaning.

There are lots and lots and lots of different types of theology. Dogmatic theology tends to be heavily Bible-based for its arguments and reasonings, as do most theologies (queer theology, feminist theology, liberation theology, christology etc etc) but there is one notable exception. That is philosophical theology, which is pretty much indistinguishable from philosophy of religion. In my course (I'm a divinity student) on that, we studied the various arguments for the existence of God, Plato, and Aristotle among others. That branch of theology at least could be called a science.

A look at <a href="http://www.div.ed.ac.uk/undergrad/PDF/Honours.pdf" target="_blank">my course handbook</a> (in PDF format) might be helpful to see the different things which can be done with theology. There is a section in there on philosophical theology, but thats not a course I take

--Egoinos--