Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Primate condemns idea that we can spend way out of crisis

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Zillah wrote: »
    I suppose I could track down that quote from Dawkins where he slams theology as a discipline if you like but I'm just giving my opinion here. Ah yes, here it is: "What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?"

    If it was no use to anybody, nobody would study it. In a strict sense of utility, "all art is quite useless". Should it be abolished too?

    I don't see how theology as a whole can speak on what is demonstrably true, since theologians come from all different angles, including atheist theologians. If it could as a whole, it would be a science and not humanities. You're assuming that theology is just a face of religion.

    The fact that I don't like it is not what makes it less a valid subject, the fact that it's an entire discipline dedicated to studying the invented details surrounding an imaginary friend is what makes it not a valid subject.
    I'm glad that actual universities and others who know what they're talking about don't see it that way.
    An observation made all the more painfully obvious when you compare to any real discipline, like economics or physics. Y'know, things that actually exist.
    Economic laws do not actually exist. We invent them. Where is your proof that theology is so simple that a child can do it?
    robindch wrote: »
    Er, Dawkins doesn't have a position in religious discourse, other than frequently pointing out that the view that religious people have of their deity is propped up by the mostly amazingly selective reading of their holybooks. One doesn't need to have gone to a religious madrasah for years to notice that the bible or the quran is full of contradictions -- in fact, it seems to be one of the major functions of such places to convince people, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that there are no contradictions.

    By saying anything about religion, one is taking a position in a religious discourse. In pointing out these flaws, he is taking part in religious discourse. That doesn't mean that atheism is a religion (I find that most of you guys assume ulterior motives to my statements). Do all positions in religious discourse have to be pro-religious? Why do assume this?


  • Options
    #33
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Húrin wrote: »
    If it was no use to anybody, nobody would study it.

    I could apply the same argument to heroin. The fact that people continue to use it does not mean it serves a worthwhile purpose in our society.


  • Options
    #34
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Zillah wrote: »
    I could apply the same argument to heroin. The fact that people continue to use it does not mean it serves a worthwhile purpose in our society.


    But it clearly does, it's used every day in hospitals for the relief of pain.

    Without theology people would still be thinking that Moses wrote the pentateuch and that the four gospels of the NT were written by disciples of Jesus. Hooray for theology :)


Advertisement