What Scientist looking for is "GOD" and trying to get out of the picture.

[The_Child]

---

you got me the in the first part. But misunderstand seemed to have made its way in the last part of this discourse.

One of the problem here is the use of the term "scientific" which you employ as something synonymous to the method of natural sciences - objectivity. But that is not necessarily so. And with that, i refer to the two branches of sciences, the spirit sciences or what we call the humanities - philosophy, theology, art, history?(god knows how youd categorize history) literature,and the natural sciences - physics, chemistry, political science,sociology etc.

theology is not a seeming science as you put, but really a science, not in the sense of the natural science category, but that of the spirit sciences or the humanities ( do not misconstrue spirit here as mystical, it is referred to as Humanities, some non-material)

"science" and theology does not necessarily start from different points. You refer to theology as being subjective, while "science" as dependent upon observation and physical evidence, this may not really be so. Theology is not 'subjective' in a sense that it starts upon a postulation, a belief, if this was subjective, then theology would not have been universal or metaphysical, but it is, therefore it is not subjective. Science does not always necessarily starts with observable, materially quantifiable data, as the case of quantum mechanics, or as you said evolution, or big bang. There is its starting point a hypothesis, a "educated" guess, which is nothing more but a veneer that attempt to differentiate itself from a belief or an act of faith. Scientific hypothesis is a belief, a probable belief, which a scientist uses to further his framework to become a theory, and then became a law, and then become debunked. But the important part here is that, epistemologically, science starts with a belief, like theology.
The starting point is what makes the two the same in their epistemology.

see here, if a hypothesis is not a belief, then why the need to prove it in the first place? But it is a belief, therefore it must be subjected to rational scrutiny inorder to be proven just like theology.

-you totally got me misinterpreted in the last part. there is never a hint of something mystical, its just hte german term for the material sciences and the immaterial sciences (physical/natural sciences and the humanities or human sciences or what is called the spirit sciences - this has nothing to do with new age gibberish)

-there is no such thing as go beyond epistemological aspect, to say so refers to unknowability but even that assertion employs a certain epistemology.

-theology once was a philosophical discipline, so was psychology, physics, chemistry, sociology, everything was once a philosphical discipline, but now, they are disciplines of their own. So you could not longer say that theology is a philosophical discipline. And not every theology student would agree (you generalize, have you asked every theological student about his opinion on this regard? of course not, that would be a practical impossibility)


cheers!

[tripwire]

Sir xiao-xiao. You have to understand who was albert einstein. Where he was born, raised and educated. When you say he believes in God it doesn't mean that his God is the same God as Christians, Hindi, Buddhists.. For all we know, his God is science. Try to read carefully who and what kind of God he was refering or describing to. He believes in (a certain) God but he never mentioned Jesus Christ. Think about it.

[bcasabee]

I think einsteins god is not Science (as per The_Child, science is just basically "about study"). He's god is nature itself, basically not different from primitive tribal beliefs of making a god out of the sun, the moon, etc. That Einstein is really a genius.

[tripwire]

It's just an assumption - nothing certain.

[xiao-xiao]

Sir xiao-xiao. You have to understand who was albert einstein. Where he was born, raised and educated. When you say he believes in God it doesn't mean that his God is the same God as Christians, Hindi, Buddhists.. For all we know, his God is science. Try to read carefully who and what kind of God he was refering or describing to. He believes in (a certain) God but he never mentioned Jesus Christ. Think about it.

Oh! Really? His God is science?
What about these following quotes?
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

[rcruman]

I think most of guys who don't belived in God and Creation celebrating a wrong occassion.
This study or scientific breakthrough will prove that GOD exist or an event that we can't explain or contain.

Lets just wait brothers, its too early to conclude.

Peace!

[NASYO]

This study or scientific breakthrough will prove that GOD exist or an event that we can't explain or contain.

Are you a scientist?

Or bunga ni sa imo "Imagination"?

[Sinyalan]

Oh! Really? His God is science?
What about these following quotes?
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

xiao2x, ingon baya ni miss tripwire nga "For all we know, his God is science..." and she added another post, "...nothing certain." you didn't read her posts properly? tsk,, tsk...

btw, I'm not siding her.

[brownprose]

you got me the in the first part. But misunderstand seemed to have made its way in the last part of this discourse.

One of the problem here is the use of the term "scientific" which you employ as something synonymous to the method of natural sciences - objectivity. But that is not necessarily so. And with that, i refer to the two branches of sciences, the spirit sciences or what we call the humanities - philosophy, theology, art, history?(god knows how youd categorize history) literature,and the natural sciences - physics, chemistry, political science,sociology etc.

Being "scientific" in its strictest and academic sense has always been the employment of scientific methods -- and no other. The National Academy of Sciences puts it in this wise: "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

As I have repeatedly said, it is impossible to study God if we use the scientific method because you can't experiment omniscience, omnipotence let alone generate proof of the presence of a god or God. The only recourse to finding God is thru those "holy books" religions use (Bible, Qu'ran etc). But then these books need to establish its place in the scientific community to be called "valid evidences."

Those falling into the field of Humanities -- philosophy, religion, History Theology, are those considered "inexact sciences" which use methods that are "largely analytic, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural and social sciences (like political science)" (See Institute of Arts and Humanities definition)

Being scientific is not to be construed to be the same "scientific" methods employed in the "spirit sciences" you mentioned.

theology is not a seeming science as you put, but really a science, not in the sense of the natural science category, but that of the spirit sciences or the humanities ( do not misconstrue spirit here as mystical, it is referred to as Humanities, some non-material)

Agree. But not "scientific" from within the purview of physical sciences.

"science" and theology does not necessarily start from different points. You refer to theology as being subjective, while "science" as dependent upon observation and physical evidence, this may not really be so. Theology is not 'subjective' in a sense that it starts upon a postulation, a belief, if this was subjective, then theology would not have been universal or metaphysical, but it is, therefore it is not subjective.

Your syllogism is incorrect. Just because it starts with a postulation it is always NOT SUBJECTIVE. The word Theology ("Theo" meaning God + "Logy" means study) alone is subjective in that it assumes that there is a God to study in the first place. But be that as it may, in Theology you can have as many postulations as you like -- you can postulate that there is only one god or one god in three divine persons, etc. What makes all these postulations problematic is - they all start from some "sacred scripture" and therefore subjective. In addition, the mere asking about the existence of a god or the denial thereof indicate that the subject "god" is materially and qualitatively subjective.

Science does not always necessarily starts with observable, materially quantifiable data, as the case of quantum mechanics, or as you said evolution, or big bang. There is its starting point a hypothesis, a "educated" guess, which is nothing more but a veneer that attempt to differentiate itself from a belief or an act of faith.

Scientific hypothesis is a belief, a probable belief, which a scientist uses to further his framework to become a theory, and then became a law, and then become debunked. But the important part here is that, epistemologically, science starts with a belief, like theology.
The starting point is what makes the two the same in their epistemology.

see here, if a hypothesis is not a belief, then why the need to prove it in the first place? But it is a belief, therefore it must be subjected to rational scrutiny inorder to be proven just like theology.

-you totally got me misinterpreted in the last part. there is never a hint of something mystical, its just hte german term for the material sciences and the immaterial sciences (physical/natural sciences and the humanities or human sciences or what is called the spirit sciences - this has nothing to do with new age gibberish)

-there is no such thing as go beyond epistemological aspect, to say so refers to unknowability but even that assertion employs a certain epistemology.

It's a matter of opinion.

One thing different about an "educated guess" is that they are not always as speculative as faith or spirit sciences.

-theology once was a philosophical discipline, so was psychology, physics, chemistry, sociology, everything was once a philosphical discipline, but now, they are disciplines of their own. So you could not longer say that theology is a philosophical discipline. And not every theology student would agree (you generalize, have you asked every theological student about his opinion on this regard? of course not, that would be a practical impossibility)

cheers!

I used to teach Theology once The_Child and btw, my colleagues, students (in Theo school and Theosophical Society) will bail me out that Theology indeed belongs to Philosophy


Cheers!

[Hellblazer 2.1]

an event that we can't explain or contain.

this is the only part i agree with you Mr. Bible Man. for once in your so-called life, you didn't attempt to explain or contain something based on a verse from the Bible. there might be hope for you afterall.