Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)


Pulled Dawkin's crap. While the idea the "theology studies imaginary things" is worth discussing, Mr. Biology's idea that it's "not even a field cause it's not using scientific method" fails on every level. That why schools offer "Bachlor's of Arts" degrees. Besides - Kant, Hume, deBeauvoir, Foucault... just saying.--Green mowse.pngGodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 13:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, it looks like PC wrote that, which means that might not be what Dawkins was saying. - Anyhow, I pulled it. if anyone wants to add what dawkins actually said and meant, go for it. --Green mowse.pngGodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 13:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
If I remember my Dawkins rightly, his view on theology as a discipline was a single throwaway comment to the effect of "theology, insomuch that it's a real subject", and as far as I'm aware that was in reference to people swanning off to do Bible studies, not the "does God exist?" sort of philosophy. Scarlet A.pngpostate 16:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
One I realized what had been written, I suspected that the line which most amused me that Dawkins would say "Theoloy as a subject is not real cause it's not based on the scientific method" was a line by PC, not Dawkins. I suspect his idea is (as he said) what the hell is the point of studying the aliens from Zebdoop, or wondering if they will attack us for saying "hi" or will praise us, since zobdoop is made up". I get that, and am fine with re-adding it - if someone who knows what they are talking about is the one who adds it. Course, I'm having a similar argument that it's not worth studying atheism, cause i don't think atheism exists outside of the minds of Christians. ;-) --Green mowse.pngGodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 16:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an example of what Dawkins has said on the subject, and some of it might be worth quoting. At least better than quoting some random blogger's King-of-France comment & implying it's a Dawkins quote. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


Godot twice took this out.

Theology is not science[edit]

Some people, such as Richard Dawkins, believe that theology is hardly even an actual subject as theology does not follow the Scientific method or deal with anything demonstrably real.

Theology is like arguing about what kind of hairstyle the King of France should wear. There may be good arguments for or against this or that hairstyle, but it’s hard to take any of them seriously: France has no king. [1]

PZ Myers dealt with this in the Courtier's Reply.


Please explain why you took it out and why you consider it crap. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably because, by that criterion, we'd have to throw away every discipline besides the natural sciences. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
See my comment in the section above, PC. You falsely imply that you're quoting Dawkins while actually quoting a comment posted by some nobody at an atheist forum. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It's also not really relevant to the article. Unlike the section "philo and theology" that really talks about an understood link, a mutual feeding that all philosophers would agree with, "science and theology" says nothing. No one would argue that Art Studies, or English Studies should be compared with science, so why are you dding one bigoted dudes comments that science is so much better than everything else? add it to the dawkins article if you want.--Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 15:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Strawman attacks[edit]

Stop the fucking straw man attacks. if you do not know what you are talking about, don't write it. there is no such thing as "sophistacked theology", there is simply fucking theology. That you do not agree with it, that you do not find it logical, does not mean they are doing it to play some kind of game with atheists. They are theologicans and fucking couldn't give a shit about atheists or our beliefs, they are working on their own.--Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 15:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC).

I largely deleted most of what was added today. It was screedish, biggoted, and really had nothing to do with what theology is. If someone wants to make a credible attack on theology, that isn't based on "oh, icky religion", go for it, but as long as the motive is just to blast religion, I see no reason to include it. LaTour, who we've been discussing in the Salon Bar, would be an interesting place to start. "what is, if any, the value of religious thought and ideas on the divine?", how have the changed over time to fit into a more humanistic and scientific venue (if they have at all, which I personally think they have). Then, having shown that there is intellecual value to theology, we can rip the whole thing apart, asking questions like "how the hell can you even know?". Within theology for Christianity, there are some amazing wars going on, about the very nature of god itself, that range from god as something science "cozy" like "the element that holds the universe together" or "the planner of the unplanned", to feminist comments on godhead and universal power, to more literal comments about gods as line by line designer of us. or we can ignore it all, this isn't a theology workshop.  :-) Just keep the childish "religion is iky, even the great and powerful Oz Dawinks says so. --Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 16:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleased you approve my additions to The Sacred and the Profane. It's an improvement on your first version and even your later version. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Godot - the phrase "sophisticated theology" originated with butthurt Christians reacting to Dawkins, complaining his theology was unsophisticated and he hadn't read any sophisticated theologians - Plantinga et al. The phrase "sophisticated theology" then came to life in the skepticsphere. Precis. That Proxima is fucking incompetent with the English language and should be banned from article space doesn't change that it is actually a thing - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

While I understand that, It's not an actual theology as it was presented here. If you want to add something about the fights with Dawkins, that's fine, but no school teaches "sophiticated theology", and when I read atheist sites taking about "sophisticated theology" I want to roll oon the floor laughting. Theology doesn't need the buy in of scientists like Dawkins, nor do they care. It makes sense to them, and is never as simplistic as someone like Dawkins makes it, cause he comes from the point of view of a non believer who simply thinks all theology has no value. A valid point, but it misses the point that to believers, theology is complex. To read Christians who are offended by Dawkins defend their theology with "but dawkins isn't reading real theology" is really fucking frustrating. But to read atheists say (and this is directly from internet atheists incorporated, grins) "I have read all of the Soph Theooogy" is even more amusing. Theology stands because 1000's of years worth of believers talk about their belief and its meaning on the world and to them. Dismissing it the way Dawkins does, cause it doesn't fit into his world view is, well, stupid. Green mowse.pngGodotL'important c'est d'aimer 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It's why Courtier's reply is in the see also. Sophisticated theology needs to be an article, if we can find or compile a decent history of the phrase - David Gerard (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Myth: Atheist Critiques are Simplistic, Don't Understand Sophisticated Theology could be a starting point. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sighs. That's about the worst site to explain anything. especially since that is the very site where I got the "I have read all the sophiticated theologies" by some atheist. Odds are, he or she hasn't, cause there really is a butt load out there.
David, I could try to write something, but I'm clearly on the "theology" side, so it might need desnarking (or depending on point of view, SNARKING). Green mowse.pngGodotL'important c'est d'aimer 16:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. Godot's attack is an Ad hominem she hasn't given a link so we must take her work for it that the author claimed he'd read all the sophisticated theologies. Even if that's true it doesn't address The points in the article.
  2. Austin Cline has worked for 15 years educating people about secularism on the Internet and he has worked professionally promoting secularism. It's likely Cline has read quite a bit of theology.
  3. Neither Cline nor Godot have read more than a small part of the total theological output of all the different Christians in different languages over 2,000 years. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this read almost exactly as though User: Conservative could've written it? Right down to citing someone doing something about "secularism on the internet"? Waterloo! Ole Ole Ole! Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 17:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
That's yet another Ad hominem, there may well be superficial similarities to what User: Conservative writes. That doesn't address the points I am making. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me be clear: my intention was not to address the points you are making, because I do not care in the least about the points you are making. My point was to note that your demeanour and the quality of your writing remind me of User: Conservative. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 13:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The appeal to authority is an extra special touch. "I've never read any of this, nor do i really understand the general ideas that are being discussed, but I have a bias against the topic, therefore I will find someone who has said something about what the topic is, and throw it in". Look ma, I have my own stalker! Prox, word to the wise; if you don't understand the conversation at the level it is being held, then jumping in to tell the participants they are ignorant of some fact, is rather - well, silly. No, of course I have not read all of theology. Which is why I made the comment I did. If you read the link that you gave, you'll see one of the individuals writing say "I have read all (emphasis mine) of the sophisticated theology and none of it makes any sense". No one has read "all" of theology. But most of us get that it's not something Dawkins can just hand wave away, nor can atheist/skepic critics claim away by the "lay people don't understand it - so we don't have to include it", etc. Theology, like any thought, has levels of complexity. It doesn't magically change because you write contemplative theology - it broadens, it deepens. Again, the attacks on it are from people who just don't think there is a god. so of course it makes no sense to them. but "so what". theology isn't FOR them.Green mowse.pngGodotL'important c'est d'aimer 17:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have your very own stalker, so have I. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's nice but what has it got to do with theology? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I've read carefully several times Myth: Atheist Critiques are Simplistic, Don't Understand Sophisticated Theology and I haven't found, "I have read all (emphasis mine) of the sophisticated theology and none of it makes any sense". If that's elsewhere on the website please give a link. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote, it's likely Austin Cline has read a great deal of theology since he's been working in the field of refuting religion for 15 years. I think overall he's likely to be as good an authority as Godot, after all Godot claims she's studied and taught in a religious studies department for 10 years. Godot probably knows more about the case for religion while Cline probably knows more about the case against religion.

  1. I haven't come across Cline stating that he's read all the sophisticated theology and without evidence I won't believe believe he wrote that.
  2. I haven't come across Cline stating that he's read a great deal of sophisticated theology but it's quite plausible he wrote that second statement and it's quite plausible that second statement is true. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was this taken out?[edit]

I feel we need a better explanation than, "the definition section is just wrong. but i didn't feel like rewriting". Godot too often assumes we should accept her authority without question. As an authority on religious studies Godot should be able to explain why she did it. Please explain why you don't like it or rewrite it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


The term theology originates in the context of Christianity,[citation needed] and its use is most commonly restricted to Christianity, and the other Abrahamic religions (Judaism and Islam). It is however sometimes extended to any study of a religion which starts by assuming that religion's truth. But the validity of its application to religions vastly different from Christianity is questionable - for example, it is strange to speak of Buddhist theology, given that Buddhism does not concern itself with God (in the sense in which that term is used in Christianity), but with other matters.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Some minimal effort would have unearthed the following: wp:Theology#History of the term.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Godot may or may not be right to take stuff out but she should give a reason.[edit]

Please give a reason! Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

We've given you reasons. Apparently we overestimated your ability to learn. Тypassive-aggressive sigs are the best sigs 14:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I changed the section title from "Definition" to "Use of the term" as the term theology is used as described in the deleted section. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll tell you what my problem with it is--even though the term "theology" has its roots in Catholic thought, there was a very long tradition of Jewish scholarship that, while not called "theology," did all the things that we think of theology as doing. Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 16:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That's part of the problem. It has a long history in Greece (there is some argument the term may have been coined by Plato, in fact). It applies to a host of religions, in way way, and doesn't apply to them in other ways. Simply saying "buddhism makes no sense in the context of theology" means nothing, if you don't understand what theology means, and why it **is precisely** studied under the rubrick of theology, etc. Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Should we put the section back with a different section title? Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to see Godot or Ty remove it again, why the hell not? Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 16:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Godot a university academic of does she teach in schools? Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sunday school. --Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 15:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Origin and History[edit]

Permalink to tangentially related discussion on Saloon bar brought to you courtesy of Proxima Centauri 15:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Theology and science[edit]

There are people claiming to do Scientific Theology which supports the reference I used, Theology, Apologetics, and Religious Philosophy, Same Questions & Topics, Different Motives. Godot is knowledgeable but she's not omniscient. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, Paul Giem is a fundimentalist who is writing for popular audiences. Like most things you find on the internet, saying "I'm a theologists" or "i'm doing theology" is fine, but doesn't necessarily mean you ARE doing theology. The very core of traditional theology is that it is about faith, about looking at non-scientific texts to figure out what is or is not the nature of god, to try to understand man's place in God's world. These are not scientific adventures. One guy and an atheist at "" does not a "field" make. If you want to do real quality research, and show that there is a growing trend in theology as it relates to science, feel free. Try starting with wiki, if you haven't, then try reading modern theologians. --Green mowse.pngGodotrien ne marcherait 19:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Your "compromise" was a childish rant about religion being BS. Proxie, what is the point of adding aspects of something that are so insignificant to the main topic of theology that they simply never appear in any real discussion of theology? Again, if you really want to talk about the fact that theology is not about science, that's great. but not because "religion is based on BS". --Green mowse.pngGodotrien ne marcherait 19:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Why Dawkins and Myers are irrelevant.[edit]

This discussion was moved to [[Forum:Theology|Forum:Theology]].

ТyBother me 15:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)