DiscussMormonism.com

I just wondered if anyone else had seen this clever video clip from Dan Dennett about the purpose of theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3GNTrAMxfQ&feature=related

I especially liked the "Canons of Good Spin" section near the end of the talk. These are:

It is not a bare faced lie

You have to be able to say it with a straight face

It has to relieve skepticism without arousing curiosity

It should seem profound

Does this remind anyone else of nearly every page on the FAIR website?

Daniel Dennett sees theology as little more than the art of the spin applied to a specific set of myths.

Sam Harris has stated that "theology" is a one-word oxymoron.

Christopher Hitchens has often taken the debate position that religion (theology) is poison.

Richard Dawkins would probably say that theology is symptomatic of a mental disorder.

It would be interesting to see what the faithful who post here would say in reply to Dr. Dennets insights about theology.

DrW wrote:It would be interesting to see what the faithful who post here would say in reply to Dr. Dennets insights about theology.

Those are not insights, they are judgments passed off by a person who doesn’t have a firm grasp of theology. I don’t expect Dennet to know much about theology, he is a naturalistic philosopher who’s never really needed to be well read in theology, that is, until he decided to opine about it.

Now don’t get me wrong, I owe a lot of Dan in the way of his work, it’s solid philosophy, but his critiques of theology leave much to be desired. You can’t dismiss an entire field of study with the wave of a hand like that, it’s intellectually careless and crass.

MrStakhanovite wrote:You can’t dismiss an entire field of study with the wave of a hand like that, it’s intellectually careless and crass.

Sure you can.

Astrology. Waves hand. Dismissed.

Scientology Waves hand. Dismissed.

It's really easy.

Seriously, though, I think it is hard to establish a basis for theology to someone that isn't already entrenched in religion for other, nonrational reasons. If theology isn't about the study of something that is real, then the study may be important for understanding how it shapes and motivates human behavior, but it doesn't have to be taken as a legitimate field of inquiry in and of itself.

To study the properties and characteristics of an entity requires that there be good reason to believe that the entity actually exists.

MrStakhanovite wrote:

DrW wrote:It would be interesting to see what the faithful who post here would say in reply to Dr. Dennets insights about theology.

Those are not insights, they are judgments passed off by a person who doesn’t have a firm grasp of theology. I don’t expect Dennet to know much about theology, he is a naturalistic philosopher who’s never really needed to be well read in theology, that is, until he decided to opine about it.

Now don’t get me wrong, I owe a lot of Dan in the way of his work, it’s solid philosophy, but his critiques of theology leave much to be desired. You can’t dismiss an entire field of study with the wave of a hand like that, it’s intellectually careless and crass.

I understand your respect for theology MS, but I differ in opinion here. A few weeks ago, I was browsing through Netflix streaming, and I came across a documentary where Dan Aykroyd was being interviewed for an hour and a half. Yes, this is the same Dan Aykroyd from Ghostbusters. In this interview, he was talking about UFO's. I guess, from what I gathered from the documentary, he is the world's leading expert on all things UFO related, as well as supernatural phenomena and several branches of the occult. I am sure that the interest, scholarship, and intelligent thought that he has put into these fields is quite remarkable.

However, the point stands that he is studying a series of fields that, at least in my estimation, are fundamentally "untrue" (I put untrue in quotation marks here so we won't have the whole "What is truth" discussion). Similarly, theology is a science, no matter how carefully or thoughtfully done, that is based on studying a being that I believe (and all scientific evidence up to this point concurs) doesn't exist. To quote Dennet from the video, "If something isn't worth doing, it's not worth doing well."

I think that, in order to even have a fundamental respect for theology as a legitimate scientific pursuit, you would first have to accept the notion that God exists, just as you would have to accept the notion that ghosts exist in order to properly respect the endeavors of someone like Dan Aykroyd. I do not believe either exist -- based off the evidence -- so I side with Dennet in this debate.

Let me point out too that I am classifying theology as being different from studying ABOUT the idea of god, which is distinct and perfectly respectable. Indeed, studying ABOUT ghost and why people believe in them, the history of ghost stories, etc. is also fine. However, studying ghost themselves, at least in my opinion, is not. The same goes for studying God -- theology.

For those who would defend Christian theology as anything more than the art of spin applied to myth, I would be interested in your response to the statements of fact made by Christopher Hitchens in this formal debate at Georgetown University.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6851159367044940771#

Enjoy.

(I certainly did.)

Hey Keith,

keithb wrote:However, the point stands that he is studying a series of fields that, at least in my estimation, are fundamentally "untrue" (I put untrue in quotation marks here so we won't have the whole "What is truth" discussion). Similarly, theology is a science, no matter how carefully or thoughtfully done, that is based on studying a being that I believe (and all scientific evidence up to this point concurs) doesn't exist.

Viewed as a science, theology certainly fails to meet that standard, but I don’t agree theology is a science in any sense of the word. It’s a systematic study of religion and the nature of God. I’d say, the discipline of theology is firmly planted in the humanities department and is truly a multi-discipline area, where competent theologians have to be trained in historical research, ancient languages, and philosophy.

keithb wrote:I think that, in order to even have a fundamental respect for theology as a legitimate scientific pursuit, you would first have to accept the notion that God exists, just as you would have to accept the notion that ghosts exist in order to properly respect the endeavors of someone like Dan Aykroyd.

The more sophisticated accounts of God are usually not posited as scientific questions, but as metaphysical ones which are usually removed from the causal mechanics of nature that scientific inquiry has come to dominate. I’m also hesitant to compare God to other phenomena like Ghosts or Aliens, because I think the categories are fundamentally different.

keithb wrote:Let me point out too that I am classifying theology as being different from studying ABOUT the idea of god, which is distinct and perfectly respectable.

I think that is the common accepted definition of theology, and I think Dan would agree with me. When I listened to Alvin Plantinga speak at the University of St. Thomas, he told an anecdote about one of his encounters with Dan, which cements my opinion that Dan doesn’t have a very high opinion of analytic philosophy of religion, which means his opinion of theology would be even lower.

[quote ="MrStakhanovite"]Viewed as a science, theology certainly fails to meet that standard, but I don’t agree theology is a science in any sense of the word. It’s a systematic study of religion and the nature of God. I’d say, the discipline of theology is firmly planted in the humanities department and is truly a multi-discipline area, where competent theologians have to be trained in historical research, ancient languages, and philosophy.[/quote]

I am fine with this statement, so long as all parties involved in theology understand this. I think, as a social science -- which is basically a study of human nature -- the study of how the concept of God forms in the mind of people is an intensely interesting one. However, I think it's important to understand that it doesn't seek to describe any extrinsic property of the universe (unlike say quantum mechanics), only a phenomenon intrinsic to -- and emergent from -- human societies.

The more sophisticated accounts of God are usually not posited as scientific questions, but as metaphysical ones which are usually removed from the causal mechanics of nature that scientific inquiry has come to dominate. I’m also hesitant to compare God to other phenomena like Ghosts or Aliens, because I think the categories are fundamentally different.

I, however, am not hesitant to compare theology, aliens, and ghosts. Frankly, I think any distinction between different categories of supernatural phenomena is artificial. The only reason why theology gets more of a pass here is because centuries of propaganda has told humanity that the one field of study is legitimate and the other is not.

I think that is the common accepted definition of theology, and I think Dan would agree with me. When I listened to Alvin Plantinga speak at the University of St. Thomas, he told an anecdote about one of his encounters with Dan, which cements my opinion that Dan doesn’t have a very high opinion of analytic philosophy of religion, which means his opinion of theology would be even lower.

From what I gathered from the video, I would tend to agree that Dennet has a low opinion of theology.

MrStakhanovite wrote:The more sophisticated accounts of God are usually not posited as scientific questions, but as metaphysical ones which are usually removed from the causal mechanics of nature that scientific inquiry has come to dominate. I’m also hesitant to compare God to other phenomena like Ghosts or Aliens, because I think the categories are fundamentally different.

I think maybe some theologians have retreated to that conception of God in the same way that Mormon apologists have retreated to a limited geography model of the Book of Mormon. But that was hardly the way God and gods were viewed in the past. They were very involved in the causal mechanics of nature because, more often than not, they were the cause. But science has forced sophisticated theologians to concede that the Sun isn't a god nor does it need God to move it across the sky.

That isn't to say that different conceptions of God don't affect human behavior in different ways. I'm very interested in learning how and why people think of God in different ways. But I think that in the future, neurotheology will become much more important than theology proper.

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
I think maybe some theologians have retreated to that conception of God in the same way that Mormon apologists have retreated to a limited geography model of the Book of Mormon. But that was hardly the way God and gods were viewed in the past. They were very involved in the causal mechanics of nature because, more often than not, they were the cause. But science has forced sophisticated theologians to concede that the Sun isn't a god nor does it need God to move it across the sky.

That isn't to say that different conceptions of God don't affect human behavior in different ways. I'm very interested in learning how and why people think of God in different ways. But I think that in the future, neurotheology will become much more important than theology proper.

Oh yes, God has been shrinking for some time now.