Philosophizing, Theologizing Your Way to Hell

[Freak]

So many of you are philosophizing, theologizing your way to hell. Your looking for answers where there is no answers. We are but human. We are beings with limited knowledge but many of you seek to philosophize, theologize with the hopes of finding the answers to your questions. Who knows? You just might find some answers but there are questions to which there is no answers.

The apostle Paul speaks of evil as being a mystery. Moses speaks of the "secret things" belonging to the Lord (see Deut. 29:29). Some questions will never be answered, they are the secret things that belong to the Lord. So, stop philosophizing, theologizing and trust the Lord "in all your ways and He will direct your paths."

[flipper]

Should we stop science too? After all, science has done much more than philosophy and theology (which, quite frankly, hardly anyone reads) to justify atheistic and agnostic outlooks.

Or should we just stop certain avenues of science? Which kinds?

I will agree to a certain extent with you though. There are a lot of Christians who seem to regard reason/logic in the semi-superstitious light as the Catholics hold the Virgin Mary. And there is much about metaphysics, theological or otherwise, that will be a matter of conjecture and sterile argument in the abscence of any physical evidence.

The role of faith does appear to be subordinated by a chimerical kind of reason by some of these Christians. However, it is still possible to be a well-reasoned Christian, if you accept certain things as unknowable.

[spl_cadet]

We don't hold Mary in any sort of superstition.

[Sheepdog]

with all due respect, i have my disagreements with what you say. it is true that some things are left out of our reach and are only comprehensable by God. however, the greatest commandment says, You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all of your soul, and with all of your mind. Matthew 22:37 emphasis me. in reality no Christian should abandon philosophy and theology, but to the extent God has granted to each Christian, seek to love God with all our minds by studying theology and philosophy.

[kiwimac]

Freak,

God gave us minds with which to reason & God is glorified when human beings act like reasoning adults rather than like children.

Kiwimac

[Pate]

Like others have already said, philosophy and theology can be used to love God with all our mind. I don't want to despise such gifts as intelligence, ability to reason, creativity, rationality, etc. They are part of the image of God that's in all of us. If we don't love God with our minds, we are, in a way, only 2/3 parts Christians. (I don't mean to suggest, that the "rational love" of God is a prerequisite of salvation. However, I do believe that it's something that God has purported us to practise.)

[Pate]

02-23-2003 @ 05:20 AM
flipper:

Should we stop science too? After all, science has done much more than philosophy and theology (which, quite frankly, hardly anyone reads) to justify atheistic and agnostic outlooks.

No, we certainly shoud not.

But actually, science does nothing to support atheism, when isolated from philosophy. Atheism is a philosophical position, and so is agnosticism. Science is (and probably should be) methodologically naturalistic. Atheism is not about methodology, but especially ontology.

Also, science itself is dependent on certain philosophical presuppositions without which it would be useless.

[Freak]

02-23-2003 @ 07:55 AM
Sheepdog:

with all due respect, i have my disagreements with what you say. it is true that some things are left out of our reach and are only comprehensable by God. however, the greatest commandment says, You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all of your soul, and with all of your mind. Matthew 22:37 emphasis me. in reality no Christian should abandon philosophy and theology, but to the extent God has granted to each Christian, seek to love God with all our minds by studying theology and philosophy.

We are but humans. We are limited in our scope of understanding theology, etc. Deut. 29:29 makes this clear.

[bdtayl]

02-23-2003 @ 03:07 PM
Freak:



We are but humans. We are limited in our scope of understanding theology, etc. Deut. 29:29 makes this clear.

Tim Taylor

Your statement is self-contradictory. If you are limited in understanding something (God in this case), then you have eliminated the very basis for your claim. IOW you've no basis for saying that you are limited, or by how much, or to what.

This is one of the silliest defenses any religious believer can make in response to reasoned criticism.

[Freak]

02-23-2003 @ 06:44 PM
bdtayl:



Tim Taylor

Your statement is self-contradictory. If you are limited in understanding something (God in this case), then you have eliminated the very basis for your claim. IOW you've no basis for saying that you are limited, or by how much, or to what.

This is one of the silliest defenses any religious believer can make in response to reasoned criticism.

Perhaps next time that mind of yours can be employed. It would be a benefit to all of us.

[flipper]

Pate wrote:

But actually, science does nothing to support atheism, when isolated from philosophy. Atheism is a philosophical position, and so is agnosticism.

I disagree because, in many cases, although atheism is an epistemological position, it is one that can find its anchors in observed reality. If what we observe is in contradiction of a creation story, then it is a point against that religion's veracity and a point in favor of a naturalistic philosophy. Science has helped provide a more complete framework for atheism that is rooted in observed reality.

I'm with Dawkins on this one:

...whereas before Darwin came along, you could have been an atheist, but you’d have been a bit worried, after Darwin you can be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. You can feel, really, now I understand how living things have acquired the illusion of design, I understand why they look as though they’ve been designed, whereas before Darwin came along, you’d have said, well, I can see that the theory of a divine creator isn’t a good theory, but I’m damned if I can think of a better one...

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript410.html

[flipper]

spl_cadet:

We don't hold Mary in any sort of superstition.

She does seem to be according a particular and peculiar sort of reverence. Oftentimes, this appears to encourage a superstitious component. If you like, I could tally up recent 'appearances' of BVMs versus 'appearances' of Jesus.

[Pate]

flipper: I disagree because, in many cases, although atheism is an epistemological position, it is one that can find its anchors in observed reality. If what we observe is in contradiction of a creation story, then it is a point against that religion's veracity and a point in favor of a naturalistic philosophy. Science has helped provide a more complete framework for atheism that is rooted in observed reality.

First, atheism is not just the denial of creation stories.

Secondly, it certainly is not a matter of natural sciences to evaluate whether or not certain creation story contradicts science or not.

Thirdly, I could just as easily say that "Science has helped provide a more complete framework for rational theism that is rooted in observed reality."

When making statements like the one from Dawkins that you quoted, one is doing philosophy, not merely science.

[bdtayl]

02-23-2003 @ 06:53 PM
Freak:



Perhaps next time that mind of yours can be employed. It would be a benefit to all of us.

Tim Taylor
And perhaps if you rebut what I wrote instead of displaying your ignorance via an ad hominem your opinion would attain some relevance.

Just tell us how you can simultaneously say that knowledge of God is limited when you have in fact just limited your ability to make such a statement.

It is absurd.

[Freak]

02-23-2003 @ 07:51 PM
bdtayl:



Tim Taylor
And perhaps if you rebut what I wrote instead of displaying your ignorance via an ad hominem your opinion would attain some relevance.

Just tell us how you can simultaneously say that knowledge of God is limited when you have in fact just limited your ability to make such a statement.

It is absurd.

I said God's knowledge is not limited but ours is.