5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Theophilus]

You really believe this?

I do. I rather enjoy the theology side as well (there is actually quite a lot to engage the brain), but at the end of the day the faith is more important to me than the understanding.

[Feck]

You really believe this?

I do. I rather enjoy the theology side as well (there is actually quite a lot to engage the brain), but at the end of the day the faith is more important to me than the understanding.

Theo why don't you engage our resident muslim for us so we can ignore him ...PLS

[Surendra Darathy]

You really believe this?

I do. I rather enjoy the theology side as well (there is actually quite a lot to engage the brain), but at the end of the day the faith is more important to me than the understanding.

I haven't seen any theology yet. Only a thin gruel of third- and fourth-hand apologetics.

But let's stop a minute: I have no objection if a bunch of people want to get together in a pretty building for a few minutes of groupthink and the pleasant feelings that go along with singing "Kum-bai-yah" in unison. Or if people want to justify ex post facto anything nice they ever do for anybody by saying "Christ sent me".

I eschew opportunities for groupthink and the repetition of dogma unsupported by any rationale, but rather, by repetitions of the same dogma one is purporting to justify.

[Theophilus]

You really believe this?

I do. I rather enjoy the theology side as well (there is actually quite a lot to engage the brain), but at the end of the day the faith is more important to me than the understanding.

Theo why don't you engage our resident muslim for us so we can ignore him ...PLS

He does seem to know how to yank chains.

[Theophilus]

I haven't seen any theology yet. Only a thin gruel of third- and fourth-hand apologetics.

Your words cut me to the quick, Sir. Did you want to discuss some theology?

[Ayaan]

You really believe this?

I do. I rather enjoy the theology side as well (there is actually quite a lot to engage the brain), but at the end of the day the faith is more important to me than the understanding.

Theo why don't you engage our resident muslim for us so we can ignore him ...PLS

He does seem to know how to yank chains.

People who seem to have no objections to genocide and child rape tend to bring a bit of hostility in others.

[Surendra Darathy]

I haven't seen any theology yet. Only a thin gruel of third- and fourth-hand apologetics.

Your words cut me to the quick, Sir. Did you want to discuss some theology?

Yeah, sure. What're the ground rules? Do you have to have a D.D. to discuss theology? What's the difference between genuine theology and ersatz theology? Does it have to cite any work published by under the imprint of the press of an accredited university?

I tend to regard theology as the infinite amount of nonsense one can write about an infinite amount of nothing. Thing is, I can't tell when it's theology, and when it's just a generalised sort of arse gravy. Does it have to mention "G-d" or can it use other names for whatever it is it cannot describe?

Not every argument that starts by assuming its conclusions is theology. I need to know how we narrow down a discussion consisting only of bullshit to something under the heading of "theology".

[Rob]

I find people with degrees in theology are invariably far removed from your average beleiver to the point that your standard theist would claim they don't support their brand of theism. Ironically this doesn't stop them from using their arguments when it supports their purpose, much like science; if the science supports their apologetics then they use it. If science goes against their claims then god can disobey the laws that govern the universe.

Beyond that I honestly don't think there is a difference between a theologian with a doctorate and well versed apologist.

[MrFungus420]

You really believe this?

I do. I rather enjoy the theology side as well (there is actually quite a lot to engage the brain), but at the end of the day the faith is more important to me than the understanding.

That speaks volumes.

[Theophilus]

Beyond that I honestly don't think there is a difference between a theologian with a doctorate and well versed apologist.

I think there is a lot of overlap. I suppose, as with science, I would expect someone with a doctorate to be writing something new rather than just be well versed in explaining what has been said before. I think the theologians who have an impact outside of ivory towers often also seem to have a large overlap with philosophy and/or history, or how theology interacts with the zeitgeist. In the case of someone like Polkinghorn you've got someone exploring how scientific knowledge and theology interact.

[Surendra Darathy]

Beyond that I honestly don't think there is a difference between a theologian with a doctorate and well versed apologist.

I think there is a lot of overlap. I suppose, as with science, I would expect someone with a doctorate to be writing something new rather than just be well versed in explaining what has been said before.

Well, science has a means of citing previous work to demonstrate that something is not new. This is sometimes referred to by the term "priority". Having a particular credential has nothing to do with publishing new data in science, except that without the credential you may not apply to be the principal investigator on a research grant without some particular credential. That is generally a function of the policies of research institutions. Research without affiliation to an instititution is very difficult to publish in a context of peer review.

Theological wibbling is not science, but textual criticism. Newness in textual criticism pertains to using tropes that have not completely worn out their welcomes.

But then, there's the whole problem of finding reviewers who agree with you, if publishing in a peer-reviewed context.

The question, of course, in theology is deciding the difference between new nonsense and old. Theological statements, being completely arbitrary, have an infinite potential for constantly renewing themselves.

In the case of someone like Polkinghorn you've got someone exploring how scientific knowledge and theology interact.

That, Theophilus, is an example of a "trope". Like many theological tropes, it first assumes that science and theology can interact, and then goes about describing how they do so.

[Theophilus]

Thankyou Surendra, luckily or unluckily I am very well aware of how scientific publications and grants work; my career is in science (20 years post-doc now), much in industry-based medical research but I am now enjoying myself back in academia.

[Surendra Darathy]

Thankyou Surendra, luckily or unluckily I am very well aware of how scientific publications and grants work; my career is in science (20 years post-doc now), much in industry-based medical research but I am now enjoying myself back in academia.

Then you know all too fucking well that possessing a doctorate is no automatic prescription for saying something new, making it all the more curious that you would emit such blatant tripe as the following:

I suppose, as with science, I would expect someone with a doctorate to be writing something new rather than just be well versed in explaining what has been said before.

Of course, you were trying to figure out whether a person with a D.D. is better capable of writing sound theology than some wanker in a basement somewhere typing random shit into an internet forum.

The problem, of course, is that science is capable of discovering new facts about the universe, so that even capable secondary and undergraduate students may publish original scientific reports (under the aegis of research advisers), whereas theology is not capable of discovering new facts about the universe, and must simply recycle old theology.

[FBM]

I suppose, as with science, I would expect someone with a doctorate to be writing something new rather than just be well versed in explaining what has been said before.

Of course, you were trying to figure out whether a person with a D.D. is better capable of writing sound theology than some wanker in a basement somewhere typing random shit into an internet forum.

The problem, of course, is that science is capable of discovering new facts about the universe, so that even capable secondary and undergraduate students may publish original scientific reports (under the aegis of research advisers), whereas theology is not capable of discovering new facts about the universe, and must simply recycle old theology.

*golf clap*

[Theophilus]

Then you know all too well that possessing a doctorate is no automatic prescription for saying something new

Can one get a doctorate without saying something new? I would say "certainly not", at least concerning a doctorate from a reputable institution. The primary distinction between a brilliant masters degree and a doctorate is novelty. Of course after one has a doctorate one may decide not to do any further novel work. People without doctorates may also have novel thoughts, of course. But a doctorate is the usual academic qualification/evidence to show that this person has produced novel work, and so is pretty much essential for an academic career at a decent university (though I think it is arguable whether that is necessarily the best way for universities to work). And so, going back to the original point of apologist vs. theologian, an apologist would have excellent wide knowledge of previous work and be able to explain things well, whereas a theologian may decide to only focus on a narrow area of knowledge and may only talk to other academics familiar with that area.