A lot of thoughts I don't even know what to title this.

[Rei]

I think it would be foolish to state that all the actions of the Church ever have properly represented accurate theology. You know how there can be bad science? There can be bad theology as well. This would strike me as a case where the Church followed the wrong path and made mistakes. Theology is, in a way, the study of God; therefore Christian theology has been around since even before the apostle Paul.


Aaand now I need to go to work (why do these posts always make me late?).

[Amka]

Rei is right. We shouldn't mistake a church organization's support of dogma for theology. This would be like mistaking the academic establishment for science.

You say dogma as if it were confined to religion, and science is above such a thing. Let me give you a similar example, though it wasn't quite as violent. In the first half of the twentieth century, many scientists strongly opposed continental drift and the big bang theory because those two theories, from different branches of science, went against a particular dogma of the establishment: that of a steady state universe. It took years and years before these theories were accepted, not because they represented poor science but because they went against the dearly held beliefs of the senior, established scientists.

What about how people originally came to be in America? We were all taught that they arrived by crossing the Bering Straights during the ice age 6,000-8,000 years ago. A scientist found evidence of settlements 12,000 years ago in Central America. Her papers weren't published and she was ignored for years, because it went against the [strike]established belief[/strike] DOGMA. Children are still taught the Bering Straight theory. You may not even be aware that it is now believed there were several waves of settlement on the American continent.

I don't care about the ordination or excommunication of Bruno in light of his being a priest. In that day and age being a priest meant you were educated. The only other route to education was the aristocracy, not exactly an open club. They didn't his education away from him when they kicked him out of the church.

There is not much support for geocentrism in the scriptures. Geocentrism was dogma because they were still crawling out of the medieval period during which many ancient documents and knowedge had been 'lost' to western thought. When they were rediscovered, it was very exciting to the academics of the time (ie the church clerics and priests) and many of the writings of ancient Greek philosophers and scientists were raised up to the level of scripture. It was believed that ancient wisdom was more true than modern understanding. Since all scholarly work pretty much occured within the church system, it became mixed up within church doctrine. Science rarely occured outside the auspices of the church in Europe.

Theology is the study of God and things relating to God. Theology asks questions like: What is the nature of God and heaven? Why does he act the way he does. What is his relationship with us. What is his role in creation?

True theology is doing this in a non-political, sincere and truth seeking manner.

[suminonA]

Rei is right. We shouldn't mistake a church organization's support of dogma for theology. This would be like mistaking the academic establishment for science.

What you’re saying is that because priests and scientists are human beings, the way theology and science is carried out is imperfect, and it is not the fault of the ideology.
Well, I agree humans are imperfect, and even following the most noble of intentions, the results are not always for the best. But we are talking here about the “rationality” of the ideology behind the school of thought used in theology.
I also agree that there is “dogma” in science too, and that people are sometimes reticent to accepting change. But that is people.

I know a bit about the scientific method (this is in my own words):
- Make observations and note the facts.
- Devise experiments to study in a controlled and repeatable fashion the phenomena you’re interested in.
- Search for a theory that explains the known facts and observations.
- If the theory explains more facts than the ones we started with, see if the “predicted” part corresponds to reality.
- If the predictions are shown (through more experiments and observation) to be correct then the theory is “confirmed”.
- If the predictions are shown to be false, then the theory must be rejected as it is and has to be modified to accommodate the known facts if it is to “survive”.
- Make more observations and note the facts.
- Etc

As I see it, it is never “final”, as long as we can observe more and more phenomena, in a ever increasingly detailed manner.
Science is about: “This is what we know, based on what we observed, and this is the current theory that explains it. We are searching for more.”

Can you do a similar description about what theology is and how it works?

To recap:

Theology is the study of God and things relating to God. Theology asks questions like: What is the nature of God and heaven? Why does he act the way he does. What is his relationship with us. What is his role in creation?

True theology is doing this in a non-political, sincere and truth seeking manner.

It has been rational since it began.

So now tell me how is theology rational? Does it use some kind of “rational steps”? What are they? Is there some repeatable method involved in such an endeavour?

I don't care about the ordination or excommunication of Bruno in light of his being a priest. In that day and age being a priest meant you were educated. The only other route to education was the aristocracy, not exactly an open club. They didn't his education away from him when they kicked him out of the church.

Well, you don’t care but the Church does. As you say, they can’t take away your knowledge, but they can surely take away your “representative of deity X” status. So don’t use “priest” when you want to say “educated person” in that context. From a theological point of view it is not the same.

This brings another interesting point: Why was education confined to priests and aristocracy only? Do you agree that the rest of the world was either utterly ignorant or had education that came from the priests?
You see this as a “positive trait” of the priesthood, but do you agree that if the priests were biased in their education, their “lessons” would also be biased? Do you think they were biased or not? Again, I agree that even present day scientist can be biased, but can you say it is the same degree of bias?

A.

[Eaquae Legit]

There is not much support for geocentrism in the scriptures. Geocentrism was dogma because they were still crawling out of the medieval period during which many ancient documents and knowedge had been 'lost' to western thought. When they were rediscovered, it was very exciting to the academics of the time (ie the church clerics and priests) and many of the writings of ancient Greek philosophers and scientists were raised up to the level of scripture. It was believed that ancient wisdom was more true than modern understanding. Since all scholarly work pretty much occured within the church system, it became mixed up within church doctrine. Science rarely occured outside the auspices of the church in Europe.

This is not exactly correct. The philosophy of Aristotle reappeared in the West (via the Arabic philosophers) in the 12th and 13th centuries - at the very height of the Middle Ages. It produced a revolution in the universities of the day, and quite a few very bitter flame wars (for lack of a better term) were fought between the neo-Platonists and the neo-Aristotelians. It was a time of education, discovery, and growth, not anything resembling "dark ages."

However, even before then, the authority of the ancients was paramount. If it was really worth knowing, someone else had already discussed it. An excellent and very readable book on this topic (if slightly dated) is C.S. Lewis' The Discarded Image. The divide between "science" and "theology/philosophy" didn't exist. Everything was known to be interconnected and dependent on everything else. It wasn't that it got "mixed up," it was that the two were inseparable.

[Eaquae Legit]

Rei is right. We shouldn't mistake a church organization's support of dogma for theology. This would be like mistaking the academic establishment for science.

What you’re saying is that because priests and scientists are human beings, the way theology and science is carried out is imperfect, and it is not the fault of the ideology.
Well, I agree humans are imperfect, and even following the most noble of intentions, the results are not always for the best. But we are talking here about the “rationality” of the ideology behind the school of thought used in theology.

Theology has always been rational, at its core. You're confusing "reason" with "exactly right." Reason doesn't lead to a single, inevitable conclusion. All of us hold opinions we are certain are entirely reasonable, and yet there are always people who disagree, who think we are irrational idiots.

I also agree that there is “dogma” in science too, and that people are sometimes reticent to accepting change. But that is people.

I know a bit about the scientific method (this is in my own words):
- Make observations and note the facts.
- Devise experiments to study in a controlled and repeatable fashion the phenomena you’re interested in.
- Search for a theory that explains the known facts and observations.
- If the theory explains more facts than the ones we started with, see if the “predicted” part corresponds to reality.
- If the predictions are shown (through more experiments and observation) to be correct then the theory is “confirmed”.
- If the predictions are shown to be false, then the theory must be rejected as it is and has to be modified to accommodate the known facts if it is to “survive”.
- Make more observations and note the facts.
- Etc

As I see it, it is never “final”, as long as we can observe more and more phenomena, in a ever increasingly detailed manner.
Science is about: “This is what we know, based on what we observed, and this is the current theory that explains it. We are searching for more.”

The bolded bit there is exactly how theology and natural philosophy worked for millenia.*

Can you do a similar description about what theology is and how it works?

Much the same way, except it is not subject to lab-controlled conditions. Its subject is (as presupposed) a being infinitely greater than the human mind can comprehend. And personal. It is not a rock or a microbe or a blue dwarf star. As difficult as it is to pinpoint what makes humans think and act as they do, so much more difficult is it to pinpoint the thoughts and actions of someone infinitely more complex.

Theologians do and always have done their best to follow the steps you outlined, as far as they are able. They were limited by their tools and their respect for those they presumed more rational than themselves. They were limited by their subject matter, as well.

To recap:

Theology is the study of God and things relating to God. Theology asks questions like: What is the nature of God and heaven? Why does he act the way he does. What is his relationship with us. What is his role in creation?

True theology is doing this in a non-political, sincere and truth seeking manner.

It has been rational since it began.

So now tell me how is theology rational? Does it use some kind of “rational steps”? What are they? Is there some repeatable method involved in such an endeavour?

I reiterate, rational =/= scientific method, particularly when it comes to questions not answerable by said method.

I don't care about the ordination or excommunication of Bruno in light of his being a priest. In that day and age being a priest meant you were educated. The only other route to education was the aristocracy, not exactly an open club. They didn't his education away from him when they kicked him out of the church.

Well, you don’t care but the Church does. As you say, they can’t take away your knowledge, but they can surely take away your “representative of deity X” status. So don’t use “priest” when you want to say “educated person” in that context. From a theological point of view it is not the same.

I admit, I have no idea what you're talking about here. You're mucking about in my time period, and I'm getting the impression you don't know all that much about the details. From what I can follow of this, Ami's made a valid point. What are you arguing about? What is the point of this Giordano Bruno nonsense? And yes, I have read and re-read the posts about him multiple times.

This brings another interesting point: Why was education confined to priests and aristocracy only? Do you agree that the rest of the world was either utterly ignorant or had education that came from the priests?
You see this as a “positive trait” of the priesthood, but do you agree that if the priests were biased in their education, their “lessons” would also be biased? Do you think they were biased or not? Again, I agree that even present day scientist can be biased, but can you say it is the same degree of bias?

It was expensive. It cost enormous amounts of both time and money, and the only ones who could afford it were the wealthy (and until the rise of the merchant class in the late middle ages, wealthy generally meant noble), and the monks, priests, and nuns who were generally expected to treat it as their job (the time factor) and who the church occasionally paid to do it, expecting greater returns (the money factor). Not all priests and nuns were educated, anyway. Often it was the wealthy families of young men who paid for their education.

The rest of the world was not entirely ignorant. They were highly intelligent and very knowledgable about what they needed to know. Can you turn a calf? Know which clouds mean rain and the ruin of crops? Weave clothing? Smith a sword? The priesthood was not jealously hoarding the knowledge of the time, but it wasn't exactly like they had a large number of people willing and able to learn what they did have. Orders such as the Dominicans were dedicated to increasing scholarship and knowledge in all things. They can't be blamed for existing in the time period they did.


* For some reason, Firefox thinks "millenia" is not a word. It suggests "milleniums." Firefox, you make me sad.

[suminonA]

Rei is right. We shouldn't mistake a church organization's support of dogma for theology. This would be like mistaking the academic establishment for science.

What you’re saying is that because priests and scientists are human beings, the way theology and science is carried out is imperfect, and it is not the fault of the ideology.
Well, I agree humans are imperfect, and even following the most noble of intentions, the results are not always for the best. But we are talking here about the “rationality” of the ideology behind the school of thought used in theology.

Theology has always been rational, at its core. You're confusing "reason" with "exactly right." Reason doesn't lead to a single, inevitable conclusion. All of us hold opinions we are certain are entirely reasonable, and yet there are always people who disagree, who think we are irrational idiots.

[…]

Theologians do and always have done their best to follow the steps you outlined, as far as they are able. They were limited by their tools and their respect for those they presumed more rational than themselves. They were limited by their subject matter, as well.

Ok, there is reason and there is faulty reason (see all the logical fallacies that exist).
Knowing this, I agree that reason doesn’t lead to a single inevitable conclusion. (Correct reason should, though).
What we need to see is this: do we agree that if we start with the same premises and use the same inference/deduction rules then we have to get to the same inevitable conclusions?

What do you mean when you say that “theology has always been rational at its core” ? Do you refer at the premises or at the inference/deduction rules? (It sounds as if you talk about the premises.)

I think there are fundamental differences between theology and science and that they reside precisely at the starting point, that is, the premises. If you agree with this, then this debate is pointless and we should start one about the premises. Another dead quadruped…

I reiterate, rational =/= scientific method, particularly when it comes to questions not answerable by said method.

Noted.

I don't care about the ordination or excommunication of Bruno in light of his being a priest. In that day and age being a priest meant you were educated. The only other route to education was the aristocracy, not exactly an open club. They didn't his education away from him when they kicked him out of the church.

Well, you don’t care but the Church does. As you say, they can’t take away your knowledge, but they can surely take away your “representative of deity X” status. So don’t use “priest” when you want to say “educated person” in that context. From a theological point of view it is not the same.

I admit, I have no idea what you're talking about here. You're mucking about in my time period, and I'm getting the impression you don't know all that much about the details. From what I can follow of this, Ami's made a valid point. What are you arguing about? What is the point of this Giordano Bruno nonsense? And yes, I have read and re-read the posts about him multiple times.

Before reading the following paragraphs, please think about this question: Do you consider that “knowing something to be true because one feels it to be true” is a valid premise for reasoning?


Ok, let me reiterate what I'm arguing about:
In the times of Girodano Bruno, the answer to the questions about “the nature of God and His role in creation” (= theology) was along the lines: “God created the Earth for the pleasure of man, and then created Heavens and celestial bodies in a clear sequential manner”. This placed the Earth LOGICALLY in the centre of the Universe, and was supported by the fact that the celestial bodies moved relatively to the Earth.
Giordano Bruno made the mistake to believe that the Earth evolved around the Sun (and to let that become public). He had his reasons (I suppose those reasons were rational). This was contrary to the “correct” answer the theology had, and instead of analysing the arguments for the heliocentric view (and rationally accept them), Giordano was declared “heretic” and punished.
MY POINT: If theology were “rational since it began” (Amka’s original claim) this wouldn’t have happened. You can blame politics all you want, but if those who “defended theology” haven’t been more preoccupied by the “loss of God’s place in Creation” than “what was God’s place in Creation?”, then Girodano Bruno would have been welcomed by the ones who were sincerely seeking the truth.

When the theological view was contested, the answer was not “why, let’s see your arguments”, it was: “you’re a heretic, we have to punish you”. That is not a rational step.

And if you’re going to respond that it was people’s fault and not the ideology, then think about the fact that in theology, most of the answers are supposed to be known (inspired) from the same source that they want to define, namely YFD. So let’s reason:
Premises:
#1) YFD is infallible. (I’d like to point out here how such a knowledge is possible: When asked how do they know that what they know about their FD is true, most of the theists say they “feel” it, and that it is a gift from their FD, it’s an inspiration that only gets to those who truly and sincerely seek it. In other words, they know because their FD said so.) In my book this makes the first premise: “YFD says YFD is infallible” (and its next logical step: therefore “YFD is infallible” is true)
#2) YFD is the one and only true Deity, and saying otherwise is heretic (a sin). Corollary: contradicting YFD is also a sin of heresy and it must be punished (the church representatives chose a punishment that in Giordano’s time was the burning at the stake)
#3) “YFD created the Earth before the Heavens” - > conclusion : logically the Earth is the centre of the Universe -> geocentrism is true

Now, anyone who intends to contradict the geocentric view is actually trying to undermine YFD’s infallibility, which is a great sin of the heretics. Logically, Giordano Bruno had to be punished as a heretic.

So I claim it wasn’t only people’s fault in applying “reason”, it actually was the premises they had taken for granted because they were known to be true as being inspired by YFD. And unfortunately, those same premises stay at the CORE of theology.


A.

[zeroguy]

I haven't been following this closely (sue me); just saw this:

What do you mean when you say that “theology has always been rational at its core” ? Do you refer at the premises or at the inference/deduction rules? (It sounds as if you talk about the premises.)

It doesn't make any sense to have a "rational" or "irrational" premise. There are certain things that you just take for granted; in logic, in religion, in everything. Even if you are completely logical, you can come to any (correct or incorrect) conclusion by following valid logical rules depending on where you start from. There's no way to logically determine a given, so arguing whether a premise is rational or not does not make any sense to me.

[suminonA]

zeroguy, that’s why what you quoted is in question form.

BTW, I have one more question: is it rational to take into consideration human fallibility (in any field) as a source of eventual erroneous “established facts”? (The next obvious question is: isn’t it irrational NOT to do so?)

A.

[vendor]

I would like to take this opportunity to complicate this further.

*throws a monkey wrench*

How many people can claim that they built your house?
1. architect
2. *developer
3. contractor
4. *primary signer on the construction loan.
5. bank

so, in this light, in what capacity was the earth created before the heavens?

*usually are the same person, but can be different.

[suminonA]

1. architect
2. *developer
3. contractor
4. *primary signer on the construction loan.
5. bank

Given that YFD was* all of the above at the same time, and that at some later time YFD inspired* someone to write a scripture describing Creation, I don't see what the complication is.

*remains to be proven (at least to me).

A.

[Amka]

First of all, thank you for correcting me Eaquae Legit. My information was from college many years ago.

So, suminonA

Why was education confined to priests and aristocracy only? Do you agree that the rest of the world was either utterly ignorant or had education that came from the priests?

Economics. Before the printing press, books only existed when people copied them. They were very expensive. Many people may have been illiterate, but they knew a great deal that you are I might not know.

You see this as a “positive trait” of the priesthood, but do you agree that if the priests were biased in their education, their “lessons” would also be biased? Do you think they were biased or not? Again, I agree that even present day scientist can be biased, but can you say it is the same degree of bias?

You probably cannot even imagine the amount of religion that suffused everything at the time. You suppose this means that people could hardly have a thought on their own. But it was out of this ferment of wondering about creation and God that western thought, including science AND the much beloved scientific method, was born. Bruno was at his core religious. So was Alhacen and Galileo and everyone else that is considered a founder of modern science. So yes, there was bias but it didn't cripple learning near as much as you seem to think it would. I would say it was the greek philosophers who stated that thought experiments were more important than reality and testing that held back science more than religion.

I just spoke to dear friend I have that I grew up with. She will soon complete her doctorate in anthropology. She's very intelligent, and very educated, and very biased against religion (though not necessarily the culture that surrounds it). The number of misconceptions she had about it surprised me when I spoke to her somewhat in depth. What she said sounded more like indoctrination than real thought. These were the easiest things for her to believe within the university setting that she will work all her life. She learned it from her professors. Her work will be colored by the idea that religion is one of the root causes of human evil and that it is easier to be religious because you think you have all the answers. This will in turn, color what she teaches her students. I experienced a similar indoctrination especially in my honors classes during college.

So my answer is yes. There is a great deal of bias held within modern universities. It is just that people within these places believe their bias so thoroughly they think it is TRUTH and so absolve themselves of bias.

Uhm, and I'm the one that said "In that day and age being a priest meant you were educated" Eaquae... So I mucked that up. But I guess my point was that whether the church excommunicated Bruno or not, as an educated person devoted to his love for God and a desire to understand, he was engaged in theology. That the church of the time excommunicated him did not change the reality of what he was doing.

Now suminonA:

Giordano Bruno made the mistake to believe that the Earth evolved around the Sun (and to let that become public). He had his reasons (I suppose those reasons were rational). This was contrary to the “correct” answer the theology had, and instead of analysing the arguments for the heliocentric view (and rationally accept them), Giordano was declared “heretic” and punished.
MY POINT: If theology were “rational since it began” (Amka’s original claim) this wouldn’t have happened. You can blame politics all you want, but if those who “defended theology” haven’t been more preoccupied by the “loss of God’s place in Creation” than “what was God’s place in Creation?”, then Girodano Bruno would have been welcomed by the ones who were sincerely seeking the truth.

And you seem to be confusing the actions of individuals involved in a religious organization with the study of theology.

In other words theology =/= religious establishment. Just like science =/= academic establishment.

Your 3 premises argument is really more of the same: They believed this, they had a set of manmade laws (note: theology =/= laws) they applied, and this is really what theology is, and it is irrational.

Again: theology is the study of the nature of God. The only premise necessary in this study is that it assumes diety exists. Theology includes Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

And your last bit, suminonA

BTW, I have one more question: is it rational to take into consideration human fallibility (in any field) as a source of eventual erroneous “established facts”?

Sigh. THIS is exactly what we've been saying. Because a field of study inevitably has human fault imbedded into it, you cannot assume that the field of study itself is faulty and irrational.

[Eaquae Legit]

I am congested. My brain is working at half-speed. I'll do my best with this.

Before reading the following paragraphs, please think about this question: Do you consider that “knowing something to be true because one feels it to be true” is a valid premise for reasoning?

No, unless one has a reason for why it feels true.

Ok, let me reiterate what I'm arguing about:
In the times of Girodano Bruno, the answer to the questions about “the nature of God and His role in creation” (= theology) was along the lines: “God created the Earth for the pleasure of man, and then created Heavens and celestial bodies in a clear sequential manner”.

The answer was far, far more complex and varied than that. Only by the crudest of simplifications could it be reduced to that.

This placed the Earth LOGICALLY in the centre of the Universe, and was supported by the fact that the celestial bodies moved relatively to the Earth.

Like Ami said, this view has only the barest support from Scripture. The error and the logic come not from anything inherent in Christian thought, but from "pagan" philosophers.

Giordano Bruno made the mistake to believe that the Earth evolved around the Sun (and to let that become public). He had his reasons (I suppose those reasons were rational). This was contrary to the “correct” answer the theology had, and instead of analysing the arguments for the heliocentric view (and rationally accept them), Giordano was declared “heretic” and punished.

Let's take a look at the wikipedia article regarding Bruno.

While the Hermetic Tradition was a major influence on Bruno, he also absorbed and developed the heliocentric ideas of Copernicus, though he claimed that his own mystical understanding of heliocentrism was far more important than Copernicus's understanding, which Bruno considered merely mathematical. ... Bruno developed a pantheistic hylozoistic system, essentially incompatible with orthodox Christian Trinitarian beliefs.

The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology. Luigi Firpo lists them as follows:
1. Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
2. Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
3. Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
4. Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
5. Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
6. Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
7. Dealing in magics and divination.
8. Denying the Virginity of Mary.

It is pretty obvious that what got Bruno executed was not scientific heliocentrism, but a philosophical system that was considered heretical. You keep attempting to characterise his trial and execution as a "science versus theology" situation, which is just not true. The heliocentrism was only a small part of a magical, pantheistic philosophical system. Bruno himself (according to wikipedia) felt that the mathematics of it were mundane and insufficient.

MY POINT: If theology were “rational since it began” (Amka’s original claim) this wouldn’t have happened. You can blame politics all you want, but if those who “defended theology” haven’t been more preoccupied by the “loss of God’s place in Creation” than “what was God’s place in Creation?”, then Girodano Bruno would have been welcomed by the ones who were sincerely seeking the truth.

Theology, as a discipline, is a rational discipline. It always has been. This does not mean, as you imply, that all theologians have been rational, or that theology has always been done rationally. Failure to live up to the ideal of a discipline does not mean the discipline is to blame, but those who failed at it.

When the theological view was contested, the answer was not “why, let’s see your arguments”, it was: “you’re a heretic, we have to punish you”. That is not a rational step.

Eight years passed between his arrest in Venice and his execution in Rome. What do you think they spent those years doing, twiddling their thumbs? Again, I point out that the authorities were less concerned with his mathematical heliocentrism than his philosophical system. The Catholic Church has long since repented and apologised for its reaction to heliocentrism, and if that were all that was in play in Bruno's case, you might have a point. But since what he was executed for was his non-testable, non-scientific philosophy, and they did, evidently, spend 8 years thinking about it, your account of a knee-jerk heretification doesn't work.

And if you’re going to respond that it was people’s fault and not the ideology, then think about the fact that in theology, most of the answers are supposed to be known (inspired) from the same source that they want to define, namely YFD.

This definies theology as "what I feel is true," which is what you are trying to prove is the case, and which is a circular argument. Authentic theology stems not only from Scripture, but from logic and observations of the natural world. It hasn't always been scientifically right, but that does not mean it relies only on divine inspiration.

So let’s reason:
Premises:
#1) YFD is infallible. (I’d like to point out here how such a knowledge is possible: When asked how do they know that what they know about their FD is true, most of the theists say they “feel” it, and that it is a gift from their FD, it’s an inspiration that only gets to those who truly and sincerely seek it. In other words, they know because their FD said so.) In my book this makes the first premise: “YFD says YFD is infallible” (and its next logical step: therefore “YFD is infallible” is true)

Non-theologians might come up with that reason. Theologians generally have better reasons. Although come to think of it, "infallible" is not generally a word used to describe deity.

#2) YFD is the one and only true Deity, and saying otherwise is heretic (a sin). Corollary: contradicting YFD is also a sin of heresy and it must be punished (the church representatives chose a punishment that in Giordano’s time was the burning at the stake)

You are once again confusing theology with politics. Theology is not about punishing dissenters, it is the study of the divine. Nor does it take the nature of God as a given, not to be questioned or examined.

#3) “YFD created the Earth before the Heavens” - > conclusion : logically the Earth is the centre of the Universe -> geocentrism is true

This premise is not theology. It's natural philosophy borrowed from the Greeks. The problem here is not theology, it's the deference to authority that was so prevalent in the middle ages. And while we're at it, even YE Creationists agree that the heavens were created first. I still have no idea where you are getting this sort of reasoning from.

Now, anyone who intends to contradict the geocentric view is actually trying to undermine YFD’s infallibility, which is a great sin of the heretics. Logically, Giordano Bruno had to be punished as a heretic.

We've been over this already. He wasn't executed for geocentrism. "Infallible" is not a word used to describe God. And heresy is not about "undermining God's infallibility."

So I claim it wasn’t only people’s fault in applying “reason”, it actually was the premises they had taken for granted because they were known to be true as being inspired by YFD. And unfortunately, those same premises stay at the CORE of theology.

Except your premises are faulty and misapplied. You've set up a straw-man based on ignorance of medieval scholasticism and ignorance of any history of theology, and confusion between natural philosophy and theology. Theology, as a discipline, does not work how you've described. Enough with the "pointy hat" brand of medievalism.

[Eaquae Legit]

zeroguy, that’s why what you quoted is in question form.

BTW, I have one more question: is it rational to take into consideration human fallibility (in any field) as a source of eventual erroneous “established facts”? (The next obvious question is: isn’t it irrational NOT to do so?)

A.

Generally, yes. Which is why theologians don't much go in for earth-centered universes anymore.


Ami, I have really very little issue with your posts. Sorry for being tetchy, earlier. I didn't really have any trouble with your statement about priests being educated. As a general rule, they were more educated. At the time, just being able to read was a remarkable education. Not all of them went to universities, but they were probably above the average for book-learning.

I'd actually like to express some slightly surprised but pleased admiration for your understanding of the time period. I don't usually hear such knowledgeable conversation from non-medievalists. It's really nice.

[Rei]

I figure the ability to read a manuscript counts as some pretty good education. Those are a trick and a half.

[suminonA]

Eaquae Legit, Amka, thanks for your extensive answers
BTW Eaquae Legit, thanks for the wikipedia quotes.

It would be hard for me to explain in detail how I’ve come to my “biased” opinion that the death of Giordano Bruno is an argument against the rationality of the school of thought used in theology. I've heard far too often the phrase "beleive without questioning" to accept that theology was rational since it's beginning. I won’t insist anymore.

The way you see it, theology is not only an abstraction, but an ideal (and rational) abstraction and any irrational act that might come from it is the fault of “individuals”. Have it your way.

We can now all laugh at the “geocentrism” because we’ve reached so far lately.
[hypothetical]
I bet the scientist will laugh about the “constant velocity of light” when they’ll learn that it is only constant in our local vicinity of the Universe.
I wonder what the theologians would do when they’ll find out that the Deity in the Bible is actually an alien (race) in another galaxy.
[/hypothetical]

A.

PS: I use infallible to mean “with no fault”, including no lying. Is YFD infallible or not? (Rhetorical question, I don’t intend to start a debate on it!)

[Eaquae Legit]

BTW Eaquae Legit, thanks for the wikipedia quotes.

You linked it. I assumed you'd read the article, and agreed with it, or you wouldn't have posted it.

I don't own any books regarding Bruno myself, and I wouldn't be able to borrow them until Thursday at the earliest. Bruno was a follower of Hermes Trismegistus. Hermes is famous for the assorted magical guides attributed to him, as well as some pretty wacky prophecies. Bruno's philosophy was heavily Hermetic - he is not any paragon of reason or science, by any stretch.

"Believing without question" is not theology. It is the very antithesis to theology. Theology is, almost by definition, questioning and examining every aspect of believing in God. Some religions and some people who like to call themselves "bible scholars" demand unquestioning belief - but their theology is shallow at best, and quite possibly non-existent.

Theology is not an abstraction. It is a field of study. It is not "what I believe." I don't see what is so hard about this concept.

I wonder what the theologians would do when they’ll find out that the Deity in the Bible is actually an alien (race) in another galaxy.

Probably not much. By definition, it couldn't be the God of the Bible.

[suminonA]

BTW Eaquae Legit, thanks for the wikipedia quotes.

You linked it. I assumed you'd read the article, and agreed with it, or you wouldn't have posted it.

I haven't put ONE link in this thread.

A.

[Eaquae Legit]

Hm, you're right. For some reason I thought you had. I blame the congestion. Sorry bout that.

[suminonA]

I wonder what the theologians would do when they’ll find out that the Deity in the Bible is actually an alien (race) in another galaxy.

Probably not much. By definition, it couldn't be the God of the Bible.

- - - emphasis added - - -
(Ok, maybe this is for another thread, but as this one is about so many things that even its author didn’t know how to title it, I’ll ask here. And, just to keep track of what’s what, I’ll go ONE question at the time.)

Can you give (in full or in part) this definition, please?

A.

[Dr. Mobius]

This definition makes about as much sense as any other, I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5144-MQV0bU

[Rei]

Probably the Nicene Creed sums up what the Catholic view, along with many if not most Protestant views, says God is (the last few lines were not included as they pertain more to the faith itself than directly who God is):

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

Along with needing to satisfy these requirements, the alien race (or in this case, members of said alien race who are God) would need to fulfill the tradition of God being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, nevermind all the stuff about there being only one God. Plus there is the aspect of God that he was and is and ever shall be. And to finish it all off, in order for this alien to be the God of the Bible, he must be without sin, thereby never lying, for he is, by definition, love, and love does not practice to deceive -- least of all for selfish reasons (I want them to worship ME! not the rest of you lot...).

All of these things reduce your alien race to consisting of one being (for there is only one God), who is triune, who has always been and always will be unchanging, plus all the rest I have listed here. In the end, what you have is not an alien race, but rather you have the Christian God.

[Amka]

I don't get omnipresent from that text. I don't really believe in omnipresent either. Not in the traditional sense, anyway. But I think that is a pretty minor point.

Anyway, I think the last part of the Atheism/theism offshoot thread was about the nature of God too.

[Eaquae Legit]

Rei went into more detail than I intended, but cool. It helps. I meant that most definitions of God exclude "alien from inside this universe" so they'd probably ignore it, after the brief media flurry. How would such a claim be proved? An alien could not be the eternal I Am, outside time and space. I suppose an alien could have seeded life on earth, even spurred the creation of the planet (too much Doctor Who for me, I think...), and impregnated a poor Jewish girl from Bethlehem, but so? Doesn't make it "God." At least, not for everyone. I'm sure there'd be lots of people convinced or disillusioned or whatever. But not everyone.

I also took the time today to do a little fact-checking on Giordano Bruno, because my pride won't let me settle for wikipedia. I had a chat with a prof-friend who's a devoted Hermes scholar, and he basically confirmed the wikipedia account. Bruno's cosmology got him into trouble more than his astronomy, plus his generally obnoxious attitude. That heliocentrism fits into Christian cosmology is readily apparent today, and if he hadn't been a pantheist, Hermeticist, occultist magician, he probably wouldn't have had so much trouble. The fact that he drew such conclusions from his astronomy kind of hints that he wasn't the "scientist" you've made him out to be.

And I think that's about it from me on this thread until I stop having to dope myself up to survive this head-cold. I'll try to get back to any questions you leave me, but you may have to remind me.

[suminonA]

Probably the Nicene Creed sums up what the Catholic view, along with many if not most Protestant views, says God is (the last few lines were not included as they pertain more to the faith itself than directly who God is):

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

Along with needing to satisfy these requirements, the alien race (or in this case, members of said alien race who are God) would need to fulfill the tradition of God being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, nevermind all the stuff about there being only one God. Plus there is the aspect of God that he was and is and ever shall be. And to finish it all off, in order for this alien to be the God of the Bible, he must be without sin, thereby never lying, for he is, by definition, love, and love does not practice to deceive -- least of all for selfish reasons (I want them to worship ME! not the rest of you lot...).

All of these things reduce your alien race to consisting of one being (for there is only one God), who is triune, who has always been and always will be unchanging, plus all the rest I have listed here. In the end, what you have is not an alien race, but rather you have the Christian God.

Thanks, Rei. (maybe this will get pasted into the other thread about the results of theology too )

Next question: who came up with this definition? What I want to establish with this question is if the definition comes from a person/group of people or not.

(I will comment on the hypothetical about the alien race when we establish more things about “what is known” today, which is where this line of questioning is going)

A.

[Rei]

I don't get omnipresent from that text. I don't really believe in omnipresent either. Not in the traditional sense, anyway. But I think that is a pretty minor point.

You're right, it isn't present in that text. Rather I meant it as an aspect of tradition which is commonly believed in the Catholic denominations as well as in many Protestant denominations in addition to the Nicene Creed.

[suminonA]

At this point, the specific details are just that, details. The important thing is that we have a sample of a definition that somehow “eliminates” the possibility described in my hypothetical. Eaquae Legit says that “most of the definitions” are like this, but Rei’s example will do, for the reasoning is the same for any other like it.

Now, for those who don’t want to re-read all the last posts in the thread, the current question is:

Who came up with this definition? (We don’t need to establish names here, just to see if it was a human finding or not.)

A.

[Locke_]

Daaang guys. I don't have much time to comment on anything (not that I could match any knowledge that has been given and tested here), but I wanted to say that this thread is the reason I've loved Pweb, so thanks for making what I had thought was a failed thread awesome instead.

Too many rhymes. Love all the conversing and understanding going on.

-Victor

ps If anyone would care to share some sources/books that might give insight to the sources of knowledge so that I could look into it myself (a la the CS Lewis rec), it would be much appreciated.