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

[kenshinsasuke]

---

Understand this if you can rcruman...hehehe, sorry sir ha nag snod sunod ra ko sa salida nga The last Samurai.

Bitaw sir ani ni.


Science will continue to look for OBSERVABLE evidence kanag ilang makita ba ug ma observe. Nya kung mag cge ka ug ingun nga Ginoo, unsaon man pag prove nimo ana nga dilio man kaha makita ang ginoo? So unsa may ilang ma observe ug ma experiment? Wala.

dili man gud mo speculate ang science. Di puede nga mo ingun sila nga "oi naay ginoo nga nagbuhat" first mangita sa sila ug OBSERVABLE nga trend. Nya wala may observable trend nga makita nato kay ang spirit dili man kaha makita so dili sila mo assumed nga naa.

ingonAna ka powerful ang Ginoo,bisan kinsa tawhana or mananapa dili maka-explain,..
human has free will man gud,relying their own strength and ability just to handle all of those,..
but in the end,..wala gihapon,..

[The_Child]

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.



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



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.




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.



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!

it would be non-essential to discuss on the term "scientific" since it has already been agreed that the term "scientific" is connected to the method employed by the physical sciences. I do not regard that we could study the metpahysical conceptions of god in a positivistic manner. All i'm saying is that the starting point is similar to that of the sciences, a belief of something, a faith on something that is complimented by reason.

What is the connection between Subjective and the postulation of God as a starting point?
you being the Theology teacher as you succinctly and explicitly mentioned in the last part of the post with a smiley, could perhaps explain to me, a mere student that i am, the connection between your claim that theology is subjective with the connection of the postulation of God? As far as ive read, being a mere student, if we postulate a God in theology, we have entered into a metaphysical system that tends to universalized. But we know that a universal is antipodal to particulars right? being subjective is being particular, as it stresses out the subject or the ego as the center of reference. But if such is so, then why is it that theology assumes a classical metaphysical form - that there is a God, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. If this is not subsumed under a universal metaphysical system i dont know what to call it. What would you call it sir?

The question is, theology, as the name itself implies is a system in itself. Would a system strive in a relativistic environment? I am confused with this. what do you think?

an "educated guess" is not as speculative as faith. i was wondering, is there a degree of speculation? Faith being the highest, "educated guess" i surmise, the lowest?
I am not very familiar with the late Pope's encyclical, Fides et ratio, being a theology teacher, would you perhaps enlighten me if Fides et ratio, says anything about how speculative faith is compared to hypothesis?

an opinion? not just an opinion, not just a doxa, it is my assertion. How do you respond to it? you cant simply dismiss it as ' a mere opinion ' because this whole discourse would end up, a failure n the start.

yes, im not also very familiar with theology, but being a theology teacher sir, isnt theology also an ontic science, or a particular science in such a way that it must conform to historical positivity - theologia sive sacra scriptura- and philological laws?




At the last statement, good for you sir for teaching theology. I hope you guys wont gang me up intellectually, (thank God, the Sorbonne has lost its glory to the enlightenment) and do send my regards to mdm. blavatsky. Although by the dictates of reason, that it is an impossibility in regards to assuming the task of asking all the theological students and professors about their opinion, you are quite hoping to have your students and colleagues to bail you out. How is that suppose to connect with what i said that not every theology studnet nad professor would agree with such an assumption? but still with such futility you give a consolation by mentioning your colleagues and students. well anyways if thats how you wish to argue your point. Its just strange that in COMIUCAP last week, ( Conference mondiale Institutes Universitaires Catholiques philosophies/ WOrld Congress of Catholic Philosophers) the inaugural lecture by Jean-luc Marion entitled "on the foundation of the distinction between theology and philosophy" assumes a difference between the two. Quite opposite to what you mentioned sir, with your co-teacher and students, perhaps they dont subscribe to Marion? (this was of course, lectured in french, but we were given english and spanish transcript so it would do)


OT: did you go to the Conference mondiale Institutes Universitaires Catholiques philosophies last week? If you did, we could connect this discussion to what Jean Marion discussed in his paper.


NB. Im just a student, so forgive me if i had some mistakes and misconceptions. please enlighten me.
cheers!

[tokidoki]

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."

And let it end with this quote made by the same man:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[brownprose]

@The_Child

I wish to continue the very good exchange, however, for the sake of this thread, lets stay within topic. You may open another thread to continue with the discussion.

Cheers!

[The_Child]

OT: (this is an OT, i beg this one OT from the moderator to clear something up)

indeed, "very good exchange" as i would quote you. we are not out of bounds are we? We are still talking about the topic, the means towards the topic.The topic afterall begs the question of epistemology between science and theology. Philosophy being in the middle.

So i dont think we are out of bounds.

Although the theosophical society and theology faculty may be an ad lib and i do admit that Jean-lUc Marion and the World Catholic Philosophers Conference i just attended last week was also an ad lib. But hey i think it kinda connects on the "bailing out" on the issue of theology belonging to philosophy. you refer to your theology faculty and theosophical society and my own reference would be Jean-Luc Marion and the World Congress i just mentioned. So it isnt really Out of topic. It still connects.

buy anyways, yeh, cheers to that!

[brownprose]

@The_Child

Better to see "Fides et ratio" in another thread or you may want to open a thread on post-modern Christianity/Philosophy, I would be more honored to read your thoughts there and of course play connect-the-dots with you.

Cheers!

[botslob]

unsa namay balita ani mga bradix? last nako nadunggan kay nahunong daw ang research?