The Roles of Logic and Science in Questions of Theology

[_Calculus Crusader]

Just kicking this off.

My premises are:

1) Logic, and particularly logical argument, can and should be used in a defense of theology.

2) Science has no place in Christian theology because neither God, nor Jesus, nor angels, nor heaven, nor the human soul have a physical existence (since the ascension of Christ).

3) Science does have a place in historical validation (or invalidation) of events. And that speaks only to the event, not the cause.

You are correct in that logic is essential to theology and empiricism is inadequate to the task of apprehending God.

[_marg]

You are correct in that logic is essential to theology and empiricism is inadequate to the task of apprehending God.

I have a busy weekend ahead of me and don't have the time atm to carry on on a discussion, but will after the weekend in the meantime...I'll ask some questions.

Explain why logic is essential to theology. Can theology exist without logic?

[_JAK]

You are correct in that logic is essential to theology and empiricism is inadequate to the task of apprehending God.

I have a busy weekend ahead of me and don't have the time atm to carry on on a discussion, but will after the weekend in the meantime...I'll ask some questions.

Explain why logic is essential to theology. Can theology exist without logic?

marg stated:
Explain why logic is essential to theology. Can theology exist without logic?

I disagree that “logic is essential to theology.”

What is the case with theology is that many assumptions and claims are made as part of doctrine/dogma of some religion.

After many assumptions, theology may argue some causal link. The problem is that the initial assumptions were truth by assertion. Hence, applying “logic” following faulty assumptions really means we have no logic or we have flawed logic.

One example:

Many Christian groups take scripts from the Bible and claim that people (man) dies because of sin. “Original sin” refers to the sin of Adam & Eve. It assumes a first man singular and a first woman singular. There is not the slightest hint of present-day understanding of evolution of life forms.

So we have a claimed logic. People die because of sin -- Adam's sin.

There is a kind of logic in that. Of course it’s flawed in that the various assumptions made prior to the because statement were not logical. They were not derived from observation of evidence.

The various God claims were not made from rational exploration (logical study) of anything. Rather, they were invented. So causal links in theology are flawed in that they come from assertions which are not established.

When someone argues that logic is essential to theology, they short-circuit the logical process which we use in analysis and study today.

Yes, one can argue that logic is essential to theology.

However, if we press those who argue that, soon we find they are making claims which were not arrived at by rational investigation.

Many places in religion, theologians argue because for something.

Only if theologians are permitted all the claims and assumptions they want can they say they use logic.

Sorry you don’t have time to discuss presently, but it’s quite understandable.

JAK

[_JAK]

I'm not sure how logic could even be used in proving or disproving theological claims. The problem is that solid premises are hard to be found in the first place. The position that religion cannot be falsified--therefore the question of God is meaningless (a logical positivist view)--says that we cannot find true premises in the first place because religious claims are ever-changing to explain observations.

Ok I think now I see where you are coming from. The theological claims which can not be falsified are the supernatural ones. They are outside the laws of physics, hence they are called supernatural. What mankind knows about the physical world is based at the core upon some physical laws of science which are treated as if universal. The appreciation of the natural world through science uses those laws as a base to build upon, other theories. If any scientific law was found to not be universal it would call into question or change currently accepted theories. But all the theories including the laws, are in some way warranted with evidence be it direct observation, inferences from what is currently observed or mathematically speculated. There is some justification for every scientific theory and law, which can be falsified with better theories or some finding which doesn't support the theories/laws. But the "universal" supernatural claims have no means to critically evalute. What is the justification that one sort of God exists, while another doesn't? Or the justification that one kind of afterlife exists and another doesn't. Because there is no means to evaluate, science, the study of the natural world can not address and evalute supernatural religious claims. And with no means to evaluate, one supernatural claims is no more reliable than another. As scientific theories evolve with better data, intuition, tools and become accepted by the general population and scientific community, religious organizations which make claims which are open to critical evaluation, such as age of the earth, or whether planets go around the sun or vice versa are forced to change their positions/claims so as to not lose support of the educated population.

So looking at your sentence, the reason the question of God's existence is meaningless scientifically is because it is a supernatural one, not because some religious claims change with the times to be in accordance with scientific theories as they evolve. Science addresses the natural world. If a God exists and could be detected in the natural world, it would be a scentific object which could be addressed, but at present it is not.

How could we use logic to if we can't come up with unchangable, solid, verifiable premises to use in our arguements? I believe this is a natural consequence of the nature of God. He is mysterious and abstract--we are unable to come to a consensus on who God is (or what His nature is) in the first place, so we don't know exactly what we're trying to prove. Once a proof one way or another is logically concluded, one party or the other can change his premises by qualifying (providing endless explinations)--and then we don't get anywhere.

Science uses logic. Science is changeable. It may explain phenomenon one way based upon the tools and data it has a a particular time. And in future time, new insights may occur, and/or new tools and better data may become available and hence better fit theories for phenomena may gainpreferance acceptance to older theories. All scientific theories and laws are temporary, though for practical purposes may be used as fact or absolute. But all can be changed should there be warrants to do so.

In contrast, religious claims of the supernatural by religious organization are not open to critical evaluation, and require only faith, no warrants to justify. Hence those sorts of claims only change or evolve if the whim of authority or people choose to change them.

marg,

Your analysis here is correct, and you have articulated the development of understanding as it is dependent on “tools and data” available at a given point in time.

Clearly we know more today than we did (collectively) a century ago. And a century ago, more was known than five centuries before. We can document that with ease.

Your analysis is also correct regarding the “claims of the supernatural.” They “are not open to critical evaluation.”

I would add to this that critical evaluation tends to be a threat to those “claims.”

You have a well-written statement.

JAK

[_Calculus Crusader]

You are correct in that logic is essential to theology and empiricism is inadequate to the task of apprehending God.

I have a busy weekend ahead of me and don't have the time atm to carry on on a discussion, but will after the weekend in the meantime...I'll ask some questions.

Explain why logic is essential to theology. Can theology exist without logic?

Without formal logic 'anything goes,' which is not acceptable to me.

[_JAK]

You are correct in that logic is essential to theology and empiricism is inadequate to the task of apprehending God.

I have a busy weekend ahead of me and don't have the time atm to carry on on a discussion, but will after the weekend in the meantime...I'll ask some questions.

Explain why logic is essential to theology. Can theology exist without logic?

Without formal logic 'anything goes,' which is not acceptable to me.

But in religion, anything does go. The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong details some of the details which allow religious denominations, sects, and cults to claim that their doctrines are the true doctrines.

The Battle for God

JAK

[_Calculus Crusader]

Without formal logic 'anything goes,' which is not acceptable to me.

But in religion, anything does go.

Not in my religion.

The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong details some of the details which allow religious denominations, sects, and cults to claim that their doctrines are the true doctrines.

The Battle for God

JAK

I am not impressed with Karen Armstrong; she is a popular, not a serious, scholar.

[_marg]

You are correct in that logic is essential to theology and empiricism is inadequate to the task of apprehending God.

I have a busy weekend ahead of me and don't have the time atm to carry on on a discussion, but will after the weekend in the meantime...I'll ask some questions.

Explain why logic is essential to theology. Can theology exist without logic?

Without formal logic 'anything goes,' which is not acceptable to me.

It turns out my weekend is when I won't be able to access the Net.

You stated that logic is essential to theology. I don't see any justification for the "essential" part. JAK has pointed out to you and you might respond to him later, that value derived from logic is dependent upon reliable assumptions. In science there are scientific natural laws assumed because they hold up under testing and objective evaluation. It's a possibility they might be overturned in the future. But theories rest upon these scientific laws as the basic assumptions and build upon them. So science is logical in that way.

In theology the basic assumptions of the supernatural do not hold up to testing and objective evaluation. So those assumptions have no basis for merit as being actually true. JAK says it well "After many assumptions, theology may argue some causal link. The problem is that the initial assumptions were truth by assertion. Hence, applying “logic” following faulty assumptions really means we have no logic or we have flawed logic."

[_Calculus Crusader]

Without formal logic 'anything goes,' which is not acceptable to me.

It turns out my weekend is when I won't be able to access the Net.

You stated that logic is essential to theology. I don't see any justification for the "essential" part. JAK has pointed out to you and you might respond to him later, that value derived from logic is dependent upon reliable assumptions. In science there are scientific natural laws assumed because they hold up under testing and objective evaluation. It's a possibility they might be overturned in the future. But theories rest upon these scientific laws as the basic assumptions and build upon them. So science is logical in that way.

In theology the basic assumptions of the supernatural do not hold up to testing and objective evaluation. So those assumptions have no basis for merit as being actually true. JAK says it well "After many assumptions, theology may argue some causal link. The problem is that the initial assumptions were truth by assertion. Hence, applying “logic” following faulty assumptions really means we have no logic or we have flawed logic."

I accept Gödel's Ontological Argument as valid and work from there.

[_JAK]

Without formal logic 'anything goes,' which is not acceptable to me.

But in religion, anything does go.

Not in my religion.

The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong details some of the details which allow religious denominations, sects, and cults to claim that their doctrines are the true doctrines.

The Battle for God

JAK

I am not impressed with Karen Armstrong; she is a popular, not a serious, scholar.

And how many books have you had published? What is your particular qualification for passing judgment on the scholarship of Armstrong? Have you read The Battle for God?

All relevant questions regarding your qualifications to judge her authorship.

Armstrong is not going to be well regarded among those who wish their religious myths were right. She is well regarded in academic circles.

In addition, see

this discussion

And see This Link

“Anything goes” means (as I used the expression) that one can find religious groups which disagree on doctrine. Of course within a particular group, religious myth is often quite restrictive. Christianity today is a cafeteria of options.

If your religion were Amish, you would have no electricity in your home, do not drive cars, and would not have a computer. I'll presume you are not an Amish Christian.

The Amish read the same Bible as do others who regard themselves as Christian.

If one is Unitarian Universalist, one has quite liberal religious ideas.
See Unitarian Universalism

JAK